|
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 - Kone
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
126
« on: July 21, 2010, 10:52 »
If you are in the US, looks like Unemployment Benefits will be extended. Not sure the unemployed will be buying pictures but maybe photographers can get subsidized.  
PS: looks like I got a deal working at Cutcaster. You never know where the next buck will be. 
@WarrenPrice Good luck WarrenPrice It is a bit slow
127
« on: July 21, 2010, 09:04 »
Hi,
I have to say that is not true, at least not in my case.
It used to be that way but lately Alamy changed it, if there is problem with the image in the batch they will only reject that image and accept rest.
128
« on: July 19, 2010, 08:54 »
I don't think the guy with the guitarist has purposely done anything wrong. He just needs to remove the download link.
He sounds like a genuine customer buying stuff to use in his work, which is of course what we want, or else he wouldn't be saying in the comments where he got the background from.
I think we have to be careful not to scare business away.
Perhaps he is one of those people who know nothing about copyrights, and yes he just needs to remove the download link. If he is a genuine customer, then he should read the license that he agrees to before he can download a photo. It's his responsibility before hitting the download button. And what business are we scaring away if a person buys one photo then allows a hundred others to download it freely?
Read some of the comments under the photo...they are made by people who appear to be professional photographers (judging by their names). Not one of them mentioned the copyright infringement issue.
Exactly. You can buy the image for your project but not for resale or give away for free. If that is allowed I would have the best portfolio in microstock world.
129
« on: July 16, 2010, 08:41 »
He is a major financial leverage everywhere, so why wouldn't he deserve special status?
Why wouldn't it be fair?
What would you do if DT is your private company?
Well there's fair, and then there's logical. Is it fair Yuri might have a special deal at DT? No. Is it logical? Yes.
I can't blame Dreamstime for wanting to accommodate it's top selling artist. And fair or not, how many of us would turn down a special deal if it was offered? 
I would. 
130
« on: July 16, 2010, 08:24 »
I like Cutcuster and I really appreciate kindness and courtesy of John Griffin. I root for them to have success but... almost 2 years, 800+ images and 1 sale...
I'm not the most talented photographer around, that's clear. But, to make a comparison, I've uploaded same amount of images on DepositPhotos six months ago and now I have 10 sales. Little money but something moving, at least...
Maybe with some more advertising...
Same with me, I uploaded 700-800 images, mostly exclusive (added best sellers from other sites). So, I gave them a chance but after 6-7 months with no sales at all, those images are not exclusive anymore. I stopped uploading, there was no point. I like their idea but they have to do something to improve sales.
131
« on: July 15, 2010, 20:33 »
I send files to Cutcaster that have gotten accepted by other agencies-- agencies that do far more business each day than probably Cutcaster could ever hope for in a year... and yet they get rejected by Cutcaster for "poor lighting" or "over filtered". 
Is Cutcaster even worth bothering with or should I just blow them off altogether??
Has anyone had any consistent sales with them??
Cricket
NONE
132
« on: July 15, 2010, 20:29 »
Wow! Amazing pictures Matt! You are certainly good enough to do entertainment photography professionally.
Mind if I ask what ISO and lenses (aperture) you used? They are tack sharp.
Thanks Lisa! I shot everything at ISO 1600, manual exposure ranging from about 1/125 to 1/250 at f/2.8. I brought 3 lenses...Canon 16-35 f/2.8L (used the most since I was so close), Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Just one body (Mark III) swapping lenses during the show.
One major mistake I can't believe I made...no earplugs! My ears are still ringing.
-Mat
LOL Nice images Mat, let us know if they sell
133
« on: July 15, 2010, 20:06 »
... So maybe this is a copyright owner who is doing same.
Who is registered from Egypt at 123RF but selling from Malaysia on ebay? That's a far stretch.
I'm getting tired of giving these people the benefit of the doubt. Not once have I falsely accused somebody for ripping me off.
Also I don't think there is a big market on ebay to legally sell POD images. There are far more specific places to do so.
Hey click_click, I had a similar problem before, and I guess I'm still having it, but I stopped looking for my own images. This way, at least I don't get discouraged. I spend my energy on other things. Sadly, these criminals who make money off of our work, they can almost do it legally. I suggest you just let it go.
134
« on: July 15, 2010, 19:54 »
Yuri pumped 500 images online this month - and I don't agree that the rules don't apply to him but everyone else.
He has major financial leverage there - a rough estimate would be that DT earns about $100,000 a year just because of him if not more.
DT would be stupid to drop someone of that caliber but now it appears that he makes the rules. Obviously not fair to other contributors.
IMO, he should be selling his stuff on the Macros anyway.
He is a major financial leverage everywhere, so why wouldn't he deserve special status? Why wouldn't it be fair? What would you do if DT is your private company?
135
« on: July 15, 2010, 19:29 »
Amaizing images. Congratulations WarrenPrice.
(who is Nico, by the way)
136
« on: July 15, 2010, 11:49 »
Sometimes the negativity here gets me down too and I just leave for a while. But there's no point in saying I won't be back, because there is too much good information on this site not to come back.
Yeah, I do the same.
137
« on: July 15, 2010, 07:43 »
Okay, i get paid far less than i did back then. But the overhead that existed back then was crazy- $50,000 a year for rent, $40,000 a year for film and processing, the same amount for assistants, then messengers, insurance, promotion, and when you got the job you paid 25% to the rep who got you the job. Spend 3 weeks without a job and you were out of business. Today, every one of those expenses is gone. Instead, you have to pay the website to sell your images. Well, to me, they are welcome to it.
The rights managed business came out of an era when to sell a stock image you had to publish a 300 page catalog and send out 10,000 copies for FREE, and do this 3 times a year. You had to duplicate every image at a cost of $5 a dupe just to have images to send out on approval. The rights managed era died because the delivery mechanism changed.
All I am really trying to say is, if you feel that you are a good photographer ( or artist), then don't worry about where the future will be. Just try to be the best at whatever you do, and that quality will be recognized. I'm living proof that you can survive change, if you embrace change as the oppourtunity it is.
It is about time somebody finally said it.
Said what? something we didnt know? something which hasnt been said over a million times? beats me!
best.
He is the first one, that I red, who admit that Microstock is good as traditional stock.
138
« on: July 14, 2010, 21:03 »
There's the glass half full and the glass half empty point of view. I prefer to look ahead to all the great new stuff happening ahead. If the micro model dies a slow death, well, that's fine, because i know that there will still be a demand for good images. The digital revolution opened many more new paths than it closed. Microstock photographers proved that image creation, and creativity, did not have to belong to a select group of photographers in the major cities with access to labs that could process 8x10 film in 1 hour and located next to model agencies and prop rental houses. That was too bad for those photographers ( i was one of them), but it changed the world for the better. Go back and look at some of the magazines from the 70's, and tell me that the quality was better than the microstock competition today. It wasn't!
Okay, i get paid far less than i did back then. But the overhead that existed back then was crazy- $50,000 a year for rent, $40,000 a year for film and processing, the same amount for assistants, then messengers, insurance, promotion, and when you got the job you paid 25% to the rep who got you the job. Spend 3 weeks without a job and you were out of business. Today, every one of those expenses is gone. Instead, you have to pay the website to sell your images. Well, to me, they are welcome to it.
The rights managed business came out of an era when to sell a stock image you had to publish a 300 page catalog and send out 10,000 copies for FREE, and do this 3 times a year. You had to duplicate every image at a cost of $5 a dupe just to have images to send out on approval. The rights managed era died because the delivery mechanism changed.
All I am really trying to say is, if you feel that you are a good photographer ( or artist), then don't worry about where the future will be. Just try to be the best at whatever you do, and that quality will be recognized. I'm living proof that you can survive change, if you embrace change as the oppourtunity it is.
It is about time somebody finally said it.
139
« on: July 13, 2010, 19:43 »
Hi Lisa, This site was good but I haven't visited it for a year or so, so it might have changed. http://www.photoshopcafe.com/
140
« on: July 11, 2010, 19:43 »
Use a laptop...that way you won't brake your monitor... 
O, I see
Try this with an iPad or iPhone
I have neither
141
« on: July 11, 2010, 18:27 »
Use a laptop...that way you won't brake your monitor...
O, I see
142
« on: July 11, 2010, 18:23 »
I almost break my PVA
143
« on: July 09, 2010, 23:44 »
I am not looking, I closed my eyes, I swear
144
« on: July 08, 2010, 22:32 »
Hi all. I dont want to be White Raven here but I dont have problem with those images. Maybe boy is bit extreme.
@SIFD
Yes, we are nuts.
145
« on: July 08, 2010, 16:58 »
I really wonder how the memory cards made out.
Well, at least, he is blest now
146
« on: July 08, 2010, 16:49 »
At first I'm not sure why you made such a deal?
Second I live in Toronto, and for this type of photography, I would charge at least $2000. First off, you have to explain to them how to build the room setup, as well as the lighting positions, set lights, and finally you have to explain all of this to someone who doesn't understand what this is about.
This is important: In your agreement, write down that you do not guarantee that his photos are going to look good after you leave. As well, write that you will be charging them X amount of dollars per hour for any additional call and make sure they understand this and read it aloud.
Third, the store owner is your friend, you should take that in account. Hey, give him discount.
So, good luck
147
« on: July 07, 2010, 16:09 »
I don't see a big difference between giving away pictures free, and earning $0.26 "XSmall" royalties, of which I have seen an inordinate number lately. /gripe
Well, there is a huge difference. If you give your file away for free, somebody else will make money off of it. People who need it, and those who don't need it, will download it anyway, and later you will find your file on sale burned onto CDs on Ebay. So why don't you sell it and make money off of your own file? Or, just stop doing stock photography, this is a business (at least for some of us) not a charity. I don't like the prices of subscription as well, but what can I do? Maybe we should all follow Madalaide and stop selling subscriptions on all sites (where possible) and then when the customer who has purchased a subscription plan sees that most images are not available through a subscription plan, they will stop buying it. I know many sites will go out of business, but do they care about us? In the end, we will have fewer sites to deal with and with an acceptable pricing range. Up in the thread, someone said that free files are for promotion. We are already paying a big chunk of our sales to agencies for advertising. That 50-80% fee on every sale should be enough for them to promote our work or their businesses. If they cannot, too bad, they should go back in time and open a free-stock site. I won't work for a free-stock site.
148
« on: July 03, 2010, 21:57 »
In editorial or advertising copy in magazines, newspapers, books, book covers, textbooks, editorials and directories YES YES Standard -- print run may not exceed 250,000 copies in the aggregate
Enhanced -- no limit on print run. Copyright notice, credit attribution required*
They probably can under 250K of copies...
utarnji list
Izdavač: Europapress holding d.o.o.
Tisak: Vjesnik d.d.
Rasprostranjenost: Nacionalna
Učestalost: Dnevnik
Dani izlaenja: Svakodnevno
Dimenzije (irina x visina): 26.5 x 38.9 cm
Naklada: 90000 >>>> Circulation
Urednitvo: Slavonska avenija 4, Zagreb, Hrvatska
tel: 6103 100,
6103 101
fax: 6103 115, 6103 148
E-mail: [email protected]
This is exactly what we should learn from, which image is for microstock and which one is not.
149
« on: July 03, 2010, 21:47 »
What a bad day today for sales.... Summer screams!
Hello? 3 year old thread.
LOL, LOL, it has happend to me too, even I was reading this thread, good point
150
« on: July 02, 2010, 21:19 »
Dobro doao, dobro nas naao i dobro se snaao
Suljo to zna lijepo sloziti, cak se i rimuje
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
