|
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 - maunger
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
51
« on: April 21, 2008, 10:48 »
I was going to buy a photo on the weekend and most of the thumbnails were red x's. Today I can't get on the site. Is it gone?
I'm not having any trouble navigating around LO - i'm in the us and have been online off and on all morning.
52
« on: April 16, 2008, 11:59 »
But michealo was talking about at least trying to prevent more sales of images that he possibly wouldn't get payment for when they do shut down.
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
If we ask, don't they delete the entire portfolio?
Regards,
Adelaide
I'm checking on that. Not sure how much staff is left at this point.
53
« on: April 16, 2008, 11:45 »
I am deleting the best sellers - just in case
I thought of doing that, but... does it make any difference? If they intended to misuse what they have there, they would have already copied everything.
Am I missing something?
Regards,
Adelaide
Oh, you're right of course Adelaide - they've got backups of backups of those images... if they were really wanting to do something inappropriate with our images, they could. But michealo was talking about at least trying to prevent more sales of images that he possibly wouldn't get payment for when they do shut down.
54
« on: April 16, 2008, 11:33 »
No, not everyone looks at the sites each day. For instance at the moment I am without my laptop so I just flicked onto this site at work.
An email should have been sent to ALL contributors at the same time as the blog being posted.
Also, ALL contributors should get their payouts. Not just if they've made over X amount. You cannot keep money that doesn't belong to you.
Well - i've had photos on 2 other sites that went under and cash in my account - all the "notice" i got was that the site wouldn't load one day - and poof - all my money was gone and who knows what the heck happened to the image library! How do you think that made me feel? Some people are just never happy no matter what. I am thankful that LO is giving their customers a month to use their purchased credits. I can understand why some photographers would want to remove their images so they aren't sold in the mean time. And, I've asked for some clarification on their plans for payouts (if they have any yet). Many fine people are suddenly going to be looking for jobs and new opportunities. And I feel sorry for them. They have my thoughts today.
55
« on: April 16, 2008, 06:58 »
I like the fact that the site doesn't even have the common courtesy to tell it's contributors BEFORE it gets posted all over the message boards. Jeez, what a way to find out! It was posted first on the LO blog and on every page of the LO site - before it was posted "all over the message boards" - you just happened to log in elsewhere first. At least they gave 1 month's notice - many other sites have just disappeared from the face of the earth with no notice and no chance for the customers to use their credits and for the contributors to possibly get their money. Mitch
56
« on: April 16, 2008, 06:45 »
I'm struggling to contain my disappointment at NOT having spent 2 years uploading and investing time there...
well, in my case, it was worth the time (at least i think so - i got several payouts) - altho not as much as some other places but more than one or two other sites i'm on that are more well known. And, I met a lot of great people in the forums 
57
« on: April 15, 2008, 20:35 »
I'm really sorry Mitch. I know you were fighting the good fight, and putting a lot of yourself into making LO a success. I feel bad for Bryan, but I feel worse for the community which remained loyal.
Thanks Dan! I enjoyed myself at LO because everyone was so darn friendly. I was so hoping that things would improve there and I know Bryan busted his tail to make it grow (probably at the expense of his family too). I was able to get a little bit of cash out of LO, but mostly it was the feel of the site and the people who made it worth while. I doubt we'll see the likes of LO any time soon in the business and we sure won't get the kind of feedback from any other site's reviewers that we got from LO. LO will be sadly missed by many!
58
« on: April 15, 2008, 20:21 »
Anyone want to just hang out with people you've met at LO? I've just set up a luckyOlivers group at yahoo! http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/luckyOlivers/join -- make sure you let me know your LO screen name so I can figure out who you are - i set it up as 'restricted' meaning all memberships have to be approved. it is just gonna be a chat group with no real purpose other than keeping in touch. Mitch "yes i'm the moderator of that group too" Jesterboy
59
« on: April 14, 2008, 06:56 »
And yet, they show this example as the "image of the week"  Granted, they claim it is a temporary image place holder for the 3 millionth image online, but still - an interesting example of something that they'd never allow us to upload.
60
« on: April 10, 2008, 13:57 »
I highly, highly doubt that the new Rebel will be useful for stock in any ISO other than 100.
Well, maybe i'm doing something wrong, but my images shot with a Rebel XTi at ISO 400-800 get accepted all the time at IS and SS. I do sometimes use NeatImage to reduce noise in sky etc, but I'm not always locked into ISO 100 for stock.
61
« on: April 10, 2008, 12:26 »
Looking at the shadow, the lighting is different in those two photos, so I wouldn't think it is a good comparison.
In looking at other images on the comparator site, they're all similarly fuzzy on the XTi and the 5D are much clearer. I'm discounting the lighting here... but thanks for the reply. Mitch
62
« on: April 10, 2008, 12:19 »
IS has said that doing stuff like what was done to the pepper above should be left to the buyers and that doing so limits the usefulness of the image.
and i contend that there are a ton of buyers who don't have design skills and don't have the time to do what was done to the pepper (for example) and therefore, they'd make more sales if they'd let some of these go thru... take a look at the top 50 this week on Shutterstock and you'll see tons of "finished" images... stuff IS would never allow.
63
« on: April 10, 2008, 12:01 »
OK so let me see if I got this straight maunger. This is all about you now. No consideration
for graficallyminded at all. Seems like sort of a self-centered way to learn.
I understand though.....you got very excited and carried away right? This is understandable
but the courteous thing to do would be acknowledge his inquiry first, and then make a helpful
reply to his question.
The MIZ
My bad - i'm so glad you called me out on that and not all the others who've gone off topic here... i should have opened a new thread on my question... but i digress. Sorry graficallyMinded, I don't have an answer for you as i only have an XTi and didn't get the kit lens. But I do have a question about the other issues raised here. Mitch
64
« on: April 10, 2008, 11:43 »
Ok, i'll keep up with the thread hijack because i might actually learn something - should this be moved to a new thread? I've always just thought of the difference between the full frame and the 1.6 to be no big deal - but after looking at the portrait images on the 'comparator' that Vonkara posted, (comparing the XTi that i have now to the 5D canon), i'm amazed. The question i have i that real what i'm seeing and it is because simply the difference between the sensor size? Are these shot with the same lens??? Most of the faces I shoot with my XTi are much like the image on the left and i'm always wondering why they're not crisp and clear like the image on the right... is it sensor or lens making the difference? here's a sample from that site  Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch
65
« on: April 10, 2008, 10:52 »
Dan, I'm guessing you didn't see the other thread on LO forums about this but Bryan has already addressed this issue: "Hey guys, how about this... Our banners are a tad out of date... we'll do a fresh batch and solicit your feedback. You guys can give a critique and we'll see how it goes from there. We still have our widget to release after Allen pushes the latest backend update. Thanks for the feedback! Bryan" And by the way, those banners were created for us to put on our own sites - they aren't the "marketing" that is being used. Granted, it will be nice to have some other banners to choose from and we're all waiting for the sales to kick in Do i need to restate that i'm the LO forum moderator?
66
« on: April 07, 2008, 06:22 »
i don't see categories in the search - are they required on upload?
do they have FTP?
I signed up today for fun (glutton for punishment?) if anyone wants to be kind, here's my referral link: http://thephotostorage.com/artist.php?aut=no&referralid=476FTP seems to be smooth and easy and there's no categories to fool with their commission is 50% we'll see how it goes
67
« on: April 04, 2008, 12:23 »
Well, there is a simple strategy - just put 7 most relevant words in the beginning. That's what I am doing when filling the IPTC field. It doesn't matter for other stocks, but sets it right for Fotolia.
However, in case your image can't be found at all with any of the keywords, give it first a couple of days (for indexing). If it still can't be found - write to support and they will force indexing.
Unfortunately, I use Aperture to manage my images and keywords and it sorts keywords automatically - so i have no way, unless i go into each file manually edit the IPTC data, to satisfy Fotolia's desires... therefore i don't upload much there and i lose out.
68
« on: April 04, 2008, 11:14 »
Alexa's traffic rating comes from people who have installed the Alexa toolbar, its not an accurate reflection of traffic to sites more the sites visited by people who use a particular piece of software
yes, the data relies on the Alexa toolbar being installed, but it is considered a pretty good cross section of the web browsing population - many people in the industry use that information as there aren't many other tools that give that kind of data.
70
« on: April 03, 2008, 16:05 »
Does anybody except Yuri who is in microstock business can live without this?
Well - i don't need it (at least i don't think so)... i rarely have issues with CA, but that could because of my lenses Good glass works wonders.
71
« on: April 02, 2008, 15:56 »
In the early days of Shutterstock Jon said that he aimed to pay 35 - 40% of the net.
I assumed that he meant 35 - 40% of the total amount of subscription money received. Just recently, I've been wondering what exactly is meant by "net". I would think of the total money received as the gross. Maybe net means what's left over after everything else has been paid. Can anyone enlighten me? What does "net" mean in an American company? A quickie google search found this in the dictionary: Net The sum that remains following all permissible deductions, including charges, expenses, discounts, commissions, or taxes. Net assets, for example, are what remain after an individual subtracts the amount owed to creditors from his or her assets. Net pay is the salary an individual actually receives after deductions such as income tax and Social Security payments. Mitch PS - net also is called profit "idioms: net profit "
72
« on: April 02, 2008, 15:21 »
I remember Sharply recommending Smugmug.
... Nope, it wasn't me. The only thing I know about smugmug is that it's getting quite popular with bloggers.
you mean with buying or stealing photos?
73
« on: April 02, 2008, 14:20 »
Wow... maybe I should start selling there too It looks really nice! By the way, you might appreciate this page - on the page is audio broadcast from the antarctic (beneath the ice) - and for some reason, i've been listening off and on all day today - hearing whales and other creatures... and in the last hour or so there seems to be a thunderstorm - with rain and loud thunder crashes. At least it sure seems like thunder - i didn't realize there would be thunder down there... i've heard underwater recordings of whales breaching and this doesn't sound like that at all - sounds exactly like thunder. anyway, thought it might interest you
74
« on: April 02, 2008, 13:11 »
I agree with this analysis 100%. And I am amazed that exclusives contribute to more than 50% of the sales. I would guess that they contribute to about 60-70%. That is not really good news for us (non-exclusives) since it shows that we are not as importnant as we thought.
plus it may put some more weight behind the belief that exclusives get higher rankings in the best match.
75
« on: April 02, 2008, 13:03 »
i use the top 50 as motivation and as an analysis tool to show what "look" people are buying... it constantly still shows that buyers want clean, crisp images - even images that are made up from several images.
I don't use it to copy, but to inspire - but then again, everyone's different
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
