|
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 - crazychristina
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23
101
« on: September 20, 2010, 14:42 »
I'm more interested in the idea of placing images where contributors get the best return (price/royalty percentage). Why place anywhere else if not necessary?
102
« on: September 20, 2010, 02:39 »
I believe it was an error but one of many lately and it really shouldn't happen. There have been too many changes too quickly, perhaps the admins there are feeling the pressure and making mistakes? I still have the opt-in check mark for 3rd party sales, even though I never opted in and I still can't uncheck it. That's not been fixed for weeks now and is one of several problems that should be dealt with quickly.
The settings in the Control Panel are misleading. Various checkboxes are checked when you open the control panel even if those settings are not actually set. To see if you are opted in for the Partner Program go to My Uploads. If there is a Partner Program tab at the top then you're opted in, else you are not, irrespective of what that checkbox in the CP says. Even if you are opted in you select which images you want to appear on partner sites. You can be opted in but have no images available for the PP.
103
« on: September 20, 2010, 00:53 »
But it might make sense to put your images on a site that pays a good royalty, if buyers will find it regardless of which site it is on. The credit package (whether subs or ppd) is still an issue of course.
104
« on: September 19, 2010, 23:02 »
I added a note on your request thread to let people know that you can't get back to them.
105
« on: September 19, 2010, 17:25 »
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.
I am working on the lighting at the moment.
I am thinking of backlighting off of a white background and then bouncing the front with a white reflector
I tried this but found the reflector at the front didn't fill the shadows enough (and it was really close). I now bounce a second light off a very large reflector at front to give more control in filling front shadows without creating additional shadows.
106
« on: September 19, 2010, 16:08 »
It's not just about technique, it's also about style. Lighting rejections are frequently stylistic. istock prefers light, bright imagery for its general stock, but not overdone. The image of the vases is extremely difficult to get right. If I were you I would either do complete isolations or avoid the light surfaces completely until you get a better grip on the stock style.
107
« on: September 18, 2010, 15:57 »
I see that Yuri is currently at >990,000 on istock.
108
« on: September 18, 2010, 15:16 »
I'm mostly doing studio work (not people) at the moment so rarely need to reframe my images in post. In my film days I loved shooting with a Mamiya 645 and I must admit I'm very very tempted by the new Pentax 645D. A huge investment though, particularly in the current unstable climate. I could manage it, just, but it would have to start paying for itself pretty quick.
109
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:47 »
The files on Canstock have been "deactivated by the photographer" not removed from the site because they were stolen.
I don't know why it's so hard for some to comprehend the above sentence. What he is saying is that canstock would have removed the files if they were stolen. They were not stolen and not removed. Instead they were deactivated by the photographer.
BT deserves an apology for you being so bloody rude!
It's no wonder a good majority of people read these forums but don't want to participate. Every second person seems to have a stick up their arse in here.
You've just reminded my why I had your former incarnation on Ignore.
110
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:39 »
Of the two choices (deactivated by photographer) and (removed because they were stolen) - the first is the correct choice.
111
« on: September 18, 2010, 04:14 »
I don't think you've parsed that correctly. If they were deactivated by photographer and not 'removed because they were stolen' then presumably they weren't stolen.
112
« on: September 18, 2010, 03:54 »
There are already signs of external search engines that will find images across all microsites. I envisage that this will eventually become the default way that images are searched for - best image at best price. When that day arrives there won't be much point having our images on more than one site. But how far away is it? And which site would be the best, if you choose only one?
113
« on: September 18, 2010, 02:09 »
There was a comment or two on the istock forums about the current 'lypse in Japan. Seems the people there are having a ball. istock intends to look after it's very top contributors, those who make most of it's money. Add in the Getty content and they'll be doing well promoting higher priced content from 'select' contributors. Microstock is the new dollar bin for istock. Anyone who is not part of the select elite had better look elsewhere to make a living from micro.
114
« on: September 17, 2010, 18:42 »
115
« on: September 17, 2010, 18:27 »
I don't think they care how many people leave. They plan to promote Agency and Vetta, with select elite contributors. They'll always have enough for the bargain basement end of the site. Fact is most of us are no longer relevant to their long-term plans (Getty's that is, not H&F who have no long-term plans).
116
« on: September 17, 2010, 18:03 »
When Oracle bought Sun I believe most of the Sun execs were out before too long due to incompatible corporate cultures.
117
« on: September 17, 2010, 17:53 »
Thanks Lou, appreciate your perspective. I was just a bit concerned about people who say their files are always downloaded at largest size for pennies from sub sites. Another question - about image exclusivity. Does it work for anyone at any site? A huge advantage of being istock exclusive has been only dealing with the rules of one site, but now that the rules seem a little, um, fluid...
118
« on: September 17, 2010, 17:03 »
There are a lot of questions about Agency content (and Hulton Archive too, it seems). I think they no longer care much about contributors, but will probably get a spin doctor to make some announcement next week.
119
« on: September 17, 2010, 16:59 »
I believe istock has given some contributors (not necessarily inspectors) the right to self inspect. Almost certainly based on very high acceptance rate from a large number of images. DNY59 would be a prime example (don't know if she has though).
120
« on: September 17, 2010, 16:43 »
I'm contemplating upgrading my camera to one with high res (as in MP). I'm currently using a Pentax K20D at approx. 14MP. Currently I'm istock exclusive, but may not remain so if I can thrive better elsewhere. I have heard that some buyers prefer to buy images where larger sizes are available, even if they're not buying the larger size. Something about respecting photographers more who have better equipment. Also, of course, buyers sometimes need larger images. Any thoughts on this? Alamy is also a prospect if I renounce exclusivity.
A related issue - I believe a few contributors don't upload their largest file size to sub sites. Is this general practice?
121
« on: September 11, 2010, 19:16 »
You may find an episode of the WNYC radio show On The Media instructive on this question. It was called The Uncanny Valley, and it discussed the problem of CGI getting too close to the real thing and the way we react to it. I remember being a little unnerved by the human characters in Shrek. I was interested to learn that they were made less human looking because of the reaction they got from test audiences.
The uncanny valley problem is mostly an issue with moving images, because the way a person moves is as important as how they look in determining 'realism'. Shouldn't be a problem for still images.
122
« on: September 11, 2010, 18:52 »
While this appears to be an across the board cut in royalties, it is not. The possibility is there for creative, productive contributors to do very well with higher priced content, even if royalty percentage is down. The people who are really istock's bread and butter, the top few percent of contributors, will stay and prosper. The influx of getty content will also ensure that Istock as a company does well into the future. I'm sure their analysts have done the homework.
123
« on: September 11, 2010, 18:44 »
I think Vetta will become a lot more important. The ones in the Vetta club will do well, the ones who aren't will have to struggle on.
Is that the same "Vetta Club" that is taking something like a 10% cut in royalties?
Prices are going up though, and many will have access to The Agency. Financially they'll be better off, and will accept that. They don't really have much choice.
124
« on: September 11, 2010, 16:53 »
3D is improving all the time. Avatar was pretty impressive. Eventually high quality renders of people and products (and landscapes?) will match photography for content creation. There are already programs that can dial up a person to specification, and changing clothing/hairstyles/accessories will be a breeze. It's only a matter of time. Take a look at
by Olivier Ponsonnet. I think the last example is particularly impressive.
125
« on: September 11, 2010, 16:36 »
Like a death in the family, however much emotion there may be the outcome is non-negotiable.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
