|
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 - ShadySue
13876
« on: March 29, 2011, 06:20 »
That said, check out this ad, which I'd say is over the line:
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2011/03/law-firm-ads-911-firefighter-wasnt-at-911.html
Are there no advertising standards at all in the US? I just don't understand why they said this: "When creating the ad, we purchased stock photography of an actor dressed as a firefighter, and we obtained all required model releases and real property owner releases, specifically including use for any purpose (such as advertising) as well all rights regarding the manipulation and/or alteration of the image. This is standard procedure for advertising agencies. At no time did we have any idea -- nor could we have had any knowledge -- that the person in the photo, Robert Keiley, was an actual firefighter, much less a New York City firefighter. This unfortunate coincidence makes the ad into something we never intended it to be."I just don't get this. The issue is that the advert is a lie. The MR issue is largely irrelevant. So is the fact that the model is a real firefighter, though that is acutely embarrassing for him personally and professionally. Are there really NO advertising standards regulations in the US? I guess the moral is, "never sign an MR unless it is very tightly worded".
13877
« on: March 29, 2011, 03:38 »
All these issues are being discussed in the Alamy forums right now: macro/micro [1]; falling prices; dwindling sales.
IMO, as I've set out here several times, Alamy's search is a major issue. Sadly, iStock seems to be moving more towards the problems of the Alamy search in its latest incarnation.
Where Alamy overcomes this is that their regular buyers can contact Alamy staff to filter out a search for them. That could never be done on micro prices.
[1] The proponent of micro prices is suggesting that micro prices should be used for several uses, particularly teachers preparing lessons or pupils doing homework. He's been out of teaching so long he's lost touch and doesn't know that in the UK (at least Scotland, England and Wales), every teacher and pupil has access to the GLOW system, which includes, inter alia, well over a million free lo-res images particularly for these purposes (quality ranges from blah to excellent, but fine for the purpose). (Ha ~ don't bother trying to check it out. I stopped teaching on a Friday and by the Tuesday lunchtime I was knocked off the system, despite still being fully paid up and registered!)
13878
« on: March 28, 2011, 18:12 »
In the US, at least u get like 5 cents per plastic bottle. 
You get 25,- Euro-cents here in Germany :-). That is close to eight times more - you can call it the macro or traditional world of the "collecting-plastic-bottle-business"
In Scotland, we recycle plastic bottles etc for the virtuous feeling.
13879
« on: March 28, 2011, 17:19 »
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.
13880
« on: March 28, 2011, 07:38 »
What's all this _ Educate Liz Day? Now I had to Google Chuck Norris.
Of course, I typed in Chick Norris, but Google Knew.
Some American rightwing fundamentalist?
13881
« on: March 28, 2011, 06:28 »
The things I'm learning on this group. I'd never heard of click-trolling before; and now I guess I have to Google "Charlie Sheen".
13882
« on: March 27, 2011, 19:44 »
While uploading my cargo plane shot I noticed some folks using 'Boeing' and 'Airbus' within their keywords. I did not do so knowing my shot is a Boeing Dream Lifter (Just came out on market). The last thing I want to happen to me is to be sued by some high-end corp lawyer...
Unless that's an editorial shot, it probably won't be accepted. No doubt it's a heavily protected design.
13883
« on: March 26, 2011, 19:51 »
Hi Stock Folks,
I wanted to know how important is that my White Background, on isolated objects, to be 255 in all areas? I used the curves with with white dropper and usually get around 250 on most of my White Background- is this good enough.
Also if you do want to isolate the object it the pen tool much better than the magic wand tool?
Thanks.
Tom
Yes, and yes.
13884
« on: March 26, 2011, 09:14 »
Looks like Customer Service are far too busy to bother themselves ... with servicing those annoying customers;
"hi! 3 days ago I wanted to purchase 600 credits, but instead bought 1200. The receipt stated that I have the right to a full refund within 14 days if I haven't used any of the credits. I immediately sent a tickets requesting a refund, a 3 comments to that ticket since then, but no one has got back to me in three days.
What do you think, are Istockphoto guys ever going to respond to my ticket? I cannot wait like this forever!
Has anyone has a similar experience? This is really unfair and unprofessional from them!!"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=318222&page=1
Hmmm, that is bad. For years after I started, there was always a note on the 'contact us' saying tickets could take four days, and to phone for quick assistance. I see the note is gone now, so they could expect a quicker answer - although the 'contact us' page does say to take out a ticket out of office hours, so the suggestion is still there that they should phone for an immediate reply during office hours. IME, only a few companies get back on emails right away: some never.
13885
« on: March 25, 2011, 21:32 »
Are you supplying editorial? If so, the brand name would be needed.
If not editorial, it's unlikely to be accepted if it's a recognisable brand (unless you have a property release from the manufacturer or maybe if it's a small part of your picture).
13886
« on: March 25, 2011, 13:05 »
Interested in the comment about the sitting logos becoming outdated.
Also, why don't they just explain why they can't bring logos live? There must be some reason, presumably legal (?).
OK, that would be a bit logical, for there to be an actual 'good reason'.
13887
« on: March 25, 2011, 09:05 »
Sh*t. I've been uploading a series and now I missed that stupid and wrong comma between the month and the year on five out of the six. So just in case I get the inspector with the 'wrong comma obsession', I need to delete them all and upload them again. *.  Of course, in normal life, I'll be doing it properly, without the comma, as I have been doing since the heady days of "FRF space FRF space" (which no-one under about 50 will have any clue about) my 'muscle memory' will never be retrained. $%&*(^&*!
13888
« on: March 25, 2011, 05:38 »
to me it looks like the searches aren't as infested with vetta as they were before
I might be right I might be wrong
You're right!
13889
« on: March 24, 2011, 20:04 »
Their programmers should stop watching porn and start programming with both hands;).
That's just about the best thing I've ever heard! 
LOL! Still, depsite today's alleged big improvement, far too many 'tell us more' failures when changing sort type. But not reliably replicable.
13890
« on: March 24, 2011, 16:47 »
The question is: does that change things for us for the better or for the worse (or for no change at all)?
Probably the worse, since anyone buying it would want to find ways of squeezing even more out of it.
I'd have to agree with Trousers.
"Better the devil you know"
13891
« on: March 24, 2011, 14:26 »
I have notice some purple or yellow fringing around my objects when I zoom in at 100% during my pre-inspection of the stock photos on my my Canon 17-55 IS lens. Usually the Lens filter in CS5 fixes it but I've been to consider using primes instead such as the 35 mm. I guess the bigger the range the most risk of this type of issues...
Again, if primes work for what you like to do, why not? A prime is one of these things people said I really 'ought' to have, but I never use.
13892
« on: March 24, 2011, 13:07 »
As above, but what gear you buy depends on what you want to shoot. I think you get what you what you need NOW and are careful about what you add as you develop. I'm not as bad as many for buying stuff, but I've bought stuff highly recommended by others that I never use. I've also bought stuff I thought I'd use for new things I thought I'd like to photograph, then didn't follow it up, or got bored very quickly.
If you've got the money, fine; but you can also do fine with basic good enough equipment.
I changed that because some very 'basic' equipment can get you into trouble with artifacting etc.
13893
« on: March 24, 2011, 13:02 »
That is so cute, especially the boy's expression at the end.
13894
« on: March 24, 2011, 08:04 »
When I first started using Photoshop I was told not to overdo the filters and colour adjustments.
That's just for iStock!
13895
« on: March 24, 2011, 07:56 »
Never 'eard ovvim.
13896
« on: March 24, 2011, 07:20 »
The OP has posted:
"I just called the magazine and they told me it was bought over getty. Since it was printed in febuary as far as I know it should show up in the GI sales from yesterday, but I can't find it there. Maybe getty pushed it into march. Weird...."
13897
« on: March 24, 2011, 07:18 »
. I find it easier to get a relevant search using phrases for example and let me tell you, I know many buyers and almost all of them use phrases or two words, that is.
The phrase thing is totally bizarre. I have five photos all keyworded 'Highland cattle' because that's what they are. Not one shows up on a search for 'highland cattle', which is a CV phrase. It seems that to show up for Highland Cattle, you have to also have spammed Highland in your keywords (OK, it wouldn't be spam if the photo was actually taken in the Highlands). I've been able to replicate this with several, but not all CV phrases, (including some 'business' phrases) and they're looking into it, as that is penalising clean keywording. Conversely, I have photos which show on a search for "Limousin Bull" although that isn't in the CV, nor as a phrase in my keywords: I have "Limousin cattle" and bull. @OP, FWIW, having had poor sales all this year, I had my "best" download day of the year yesterday (after having ONE dl on each of last Thursday and Friday) of 9 (oh for the heady days of 12-15 on a weekday!). These were: An EL of a previously not downloaded pic uploaded in Nov 09. (I've noticed that my ELs tend to be on low/non downloaded files) 4 brand new editorial pics. 1 photo of ducks which had only been in my port two days. (VERY unusual for me, but they weren't Mallards) 2 dls of a pic uploaded March 2007 with only 5 previous dls. But only 1 dl overnight and no more so far today. Update: and still no more by 5 p.m. GMT! So much for imagining the drought was finally over.  There was a huge shake up over the weekend. Previously all my editorials were at the end of every search, and many new ones were too: now they seem to be mixed through, apparently randomly, and there was anotherbug shake last night, according to my usual best match checks. I guess they're trying different things out to maximise sales and profitability. I think, as fotographer says, they won't let overall sales shrink. They don't care if "I" or "you" have lower sales. It doesn't even matter whether "old" or "new" images are selling better, only that sales overall are going up. (Oh and they care about profitablity too, which no doubt is why I'm seeing some of my images below wrongly-keyworded images by non-exclusives. :-(
13898
« on: March 24, 2011, 05:43 »
The zero dollar sale is that for some stupid reason they round down sales reports on their GI Sales page, and it was an under a dollar royalty - probably a $5 sale for web or whatever.
One would hopefully assume the correct payment is in the account.
The OP in that thread's image was found in a print magazine, though.
13899
« on: March 23, 2011, 20:56 »
ACR > Photoshop (voted Other)
13900
« on: March 23, 2011, 19:11 »
There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until
I don't know, the OP, later in the thread said he doesn't think it's a Getty sale. I hope he let's everyone know the outcome, provided he's not required to sign an NDA. 
Actually, I suspect, based on my interpretation of what I have/haven't been told about a couple of previous 'irregularities' (i.e. when it turned out an image had been misused) but don't know, that they have to sign one.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
