|
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 - puravida
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13
76
« on: July 18, 2009, 14:41 »
Crestock showed they didn't give a rat's ass on what we said with the Judge. From the forum many had voiced to get the Judge fired or else they quit Crestock. That was quite some time ago. The Judge is still there, and I suppose that's Crestock 's way of giving us all the finger. Someone also mentioned that they don't give a hoot how many deleted their accounts because many will never reach payout. That makes a whole lotta sense because it means 100% earnings go into their pocket. Personally, I like, no corrections, I used to like Crestock. Their standard is very high and they pick different images from what the Big 6 pick. The mystery is what the Judge picks, cos it's usually something horrible and almost laughable (much like you know which other site with their unique images in lightbox,etc...) Anyway, it's all water down the plynth as it's unlikely Crestock will ever care about what you think. Incidentally, about Josh. I think he was the only cool dude there. But we know many other cool dudes too who used to work for horrible sites. btw, did anyone see the featured lightbox on IS ? coins out of focus , clock with bad dof,etc... I thought they rejected stuff like that due to "blur" ,etc. Has IS really changed that much ? Can anyone tell me how those images got approved, never mind got to be featured. (*, what . do I know? ) 
77
« on: July 16, 2009, 21:42 »
dya know where Alice is?
getting small
ah, there you are . changing size to get where you need to be. ... just as i thought, adaptable as ever.  @pixelbytes
Congrats on your decision Cathy.
Thanks. I hope it wasn't a wrong one. I should have plenty of time to shoot photos, redo my website and fill out applications.
cathy, i am sure you'll do well. you have a sense of humor, and you know not to take yourself too seriously. the lighter the mind the higher they fly. enjoy !
78
« on: July 16, 2009, 18:18 »
Apparently I'm not the only one with emotional problems...
rofl, the whole world's an asylum ! & i am mad hatter !  dya know where Alice is? 
79
« on: July 16, 2009, 17:05 »
for a site that's not even started walking, i am surprised to see some ppl already making judgement to quit .
sure the rejections , more than necessary . but i look at in the other way . the more picky the lesser the collection, the greater the chance of getting downloads.
see it this way, "hey , so much the better for those who stay !"
as for that "intelligent" person who you thinks Veer is for idiots and a big hype .
exccuuuusse us for living !
woo hoo , dude! don't stay up on accounts of us idiots .
we won't lose any sleep , neither will we be staying up waiting for you..
yuk!yuk! snort, grunt ! ...( no translation possible, just unintelligible ,incohorent gibberish!)
as whatalife said, "don't contribute, if you don't like Veer".
80
« on: July 15, 2009, 08:48 »
This is a snapshot (Image Deleted).
"Erupting volcanoes are a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific. We are looking for images that exceed the technical quality and creativity of the images already online. Please take a few minutes to browse through the best selling images online (on this subject) and go deeper, play, have a more creative, more personal approach to it, like extinguishing the volcano, girls with headset playing on top in the lava, the volcano top covered with a hardhat or handholding businessmen dancing around the base cheering and waving fire extinguishers."
Don't forget the goldfish jumping into and out of the lava.
rejects all. reason: we have too many of these type of images, try to think out of the box. suggestion: model taking the leak into the volcano model release: not required for silhouette or partial lower body shots. (note: some site may differ on MR requirement )
81
« on: July 14, 2009, 22:34 »
I think Sean has been given a bad rep. He's really a nice guy !
No, I'm not. Don't tell people that!
Oops, sorry Sean, I shouldn't have said that! I take it back
82
« on: July 14, 2009, 22:32 »
Its funny, when Photoshelter closed down, they recommended that their members should upload their photos to Alamy, and now Alamy is recommending to use Photoshelter as a hosting site...does anyone knows if the two sites are link in any way?  ...just curious.
If they aren't connected, they should be. I like Alamy, and I liked the PS free site before they died a horrible death. It would be a good combo. Although for me neither has much sales.
83
« on: July 14, 2009, 18:33 »
Whilst like Sean I'm not going to directly help you with what to shoot you seem like a nice genuine guy so I'll give you a couple of tips I think might help, for the type of stock that sells on microstock sometimes attention to detail helps and often 'less is more', I had a quick look on your flickr portfolio, your shot of the place setting would appeal more in this market if you remove the flowers and edge design on the plate, and more importantly get the cutlery layout correct, for a buyer to add a design of their own choice is easy to do, to have to remove one they don't like will most probably make them buy someone else's shot. Your shot of the cat is good and the uniqueness of the different coloured eyes is a feature that I think would help it's appeal because it can be used for concepts other than that to do with pets.
If you like nature and you're keen on isolating things then isolate things you find in nature, people will tell you they won't sell but trust me if you do it really well they will sell, mainly because the sites are flooded with isolated shots that haven't been done well.
Good luck
I think Sean has been given a bad rep. He's really a nice guy ! Also for your comments, very helpful. I never thought of that .eg. cleaning up the edge frills; isolate nature ; . But I agree, isolation work has been done to death, but a good one will still find some sales. Just don't copy and rip off the best sellers. Why would anyone in the right mind buy a poor copycat when the original is better done ? As they say, the best way to beat the competition is not to be one.
84
« on: July 14, 2009, 18:01 »
85
« on: July 14, 2009, 14:33 »
"Erupting volcanoes are a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific. We are looking for images that exceed the technical quality and creativity of the images already online. Please take a few minutes to browse through the best selling images online (on this subject) and go deeper, play, have a more creative, more personal approach to it, like extinguishing the volcano, girls with headset playing on top in the lava, the volcano top covered with a hardhat or handholding businessmen dancing around the base cheering and waving fire extinguishers."
rofl, you just kill me, cevapcici 2 additional warnings: - make sure you get a IP release (headsets, extinguisher,etc), - if you are going to depict a religious maiden sacrificial rite, some countries banned virgin sacrifice in volcanos a century ago
86
« on: July 14, 2009, 14:29 »
I am sure everyone has their own views of starting a microstock website but easiler said than done.
Calling them "clone", I dont know if I would put them down. If it were not for other stock agencies, I would not make the money I do make. There is always room for competition even for the "little" companies. Obviously someone is buying from them. Each agency has their own way of running things. I am ok with that.
I am just glad there is a top 10 and would be happy to use any others moving up the ladder.
I would never make my images exclusive. I dont think I would make more doing that.
You are right your opening statement, it is easier said than done. As is the gist of this topic. On the subject of "clones", it's hard not to call most of them "clones" when so many of us submit the same images to all of them. Obviously, someone is buying from them no doubt, but here is where your closing statement could be challenged by those who are successful and exclusive. If the buyers know your images can only be found in one site, then perharps you will make more money for two reasons. More cumulative earnings so you get paid faster, and more sales because the buyer knows your images are exclusive. Before the premium stock diversification came about, it probably makes little difference, but now that say Istock has this new premium tier, I am inclined to think that there is going to be an advantage to consider going exclusive. The contra reason for most independents like myself has always been the lurking dangers and threat of putting the eggs in one basket. But I haven't seen too much of an exodus from the IStock exclusives. So perharps, they know something we don't. It doesn't hurt to investigate the other side of the coin.
87
« on: July 14, 2009, 10:34 »
The other problem is I always find it a guessing game when to upload a model release if you can't see the model's face. I couldn't see the models face so didn't include a release and was told to upload one becuase the model is the main subject of the image. The problem is I've uploaded model releases in the past with models who you can't see the face and receive a rejection stating that the model release isn't needed for this image.
Yes very irksome. Like I said though, it's MAINLY my fault.
Irksome, yes! MAINLY your fault , CERTAINLY ! Reviewers are deemed infallible since Atilla the hun
88
« on: July 14, 2009, 10:16 »
Although we think your image is nice (for an amateur), we regret it does not reach our level of esthetic excellence.
Note: some words have been replaced to avoid infringement of intellectual property (ie. rejection notice owned by certain esteemed reviewer)
89
« on: July 14, 2009, 10:06 »
If you have an existing stock video online presence, I see no reason that you need to hid behind anonymity. You're a business who is out there selling. Why not show us your existing stock site?
Well said ! Yes, it may initially open you to certain interrogation which might be a pain in the rear end, but after the inquisition you will find that those who gained the confidence of many here in MSG actually do well and enjoy proactive participation with the forum. Example is Keith of Zymmetrical, John of Cutcaster, and more recently the reps of Veers Marketing.
90
« on: July 13, 2009, 18:06 »
Whatever, but the hair is always a terrible mess and a timewaster. 
Nice shot.
So what's the deal here? Too much light spill from the background? No gobos? Too close to the background?
Experts anyone?
Brylcreem Hair gel Hair spray choose any one above  or if not: give him a kojak wear a turban
91
« on: July 13, 2009, 09:46 »
hi Puravida,
sorry
my cam is Sony Cybershot DSC 650 S.
I'm having already two lenses from my Canon film camera EOS REBEL X S
one is Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-80 mm 1:3.5 - 5.6 II
second is Sigma Zoom 100-300 mm 1:4.5 - 6.7 DL
and I would go for a Canon to buy, given I'm already having lenses, just don't know what to start with.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Thanks
There are many Canon users here, so putting this comment will draw some good first hand advice from them. As for which lens you need , this is what I personally suggest: 1)Make a note of the lenses that whoever comes in here say are awesome. 2) get one of your old memory cards, one that you don't need, or just buy a cheap one. 3) visit your camera stores, and ask to try those lenses. Let the sales person know you are serious about building up your equipment, if you have a business card better still, give it to that person. Say you brought a memory card so you can use the XS there, or whatever camera you intend to buy, and use those lenses to shoot around the shop. Once, I even had the salesperson let me stand outside to shoot a few shots with each lens. Of course, I am already known to that person, and he knows where to send the cops if I ran away, lol. But that's my advice. You can then take the card home to view it with your computer. Then you can decide which lens you want to buy next. Any review you read is highly subjective. The proof is in your own eye and your own preference. Many times, some experts tell me xxx lense or xxx body rules, only for me to go to the shop to find out how much I hate them. Not because they are lousy cameras or lenses, but because they don't feel good shooting in my own hands. It's like finding a partner. Your friends can tell you xxx is hot, or xxx is hotter, but only you know which person is best for you. Cameras and equipment are the same, especially when you consider we probably changed partners more often than we change our camera equipment. So choose your camera / lenses as carefully as you choose your life partner Advantage is you can try your cameras and lenses the method I suggested. Unfortunately, I am not so sure if you can apply that to selecting your future partner , lol..
92
« on: July 12, 2009, 20:00 »
Cultural diversity , if you've travelled extensive, is nothing more than a hyperbole. Whether it is in North America, or Britain, or the continent of Africa, or China.
I agree with the suggestion that one needs to be immersed directly to understand a culture. You don't get to know this simply by surfing the web. You may fake it to someone who has never left his own country, but your internet experience of being a cultural expert will be easily noticed by any globetrotter, from the travelling photojournalist to the budget student hiker.
There is one consistency regardless of culture, ie. the white skin is always the color preference. Whether it be Bollywood (white skinned from Bombay), Hong Kong or China (white skinned Cantonese), Africa (lighter skin in preference to the darkest from Senegal ) , Spanish be it from Latin America or Spain (white skin once again).
Is this up for contradiction from anyone here who has found this not to be true.
Well, I would be very surprised, if any of my peers, who is either an intrepid traveller or one who has done any research , would disagree.
My point being, as much as the media or politicians try to bring about racial tolerance or multi-culturalism, it is merely a blatant white-wash (no pun intended) . How much of this light skin subtle prejudice is indeed due to conditioning. Very much so. Magazines mould the young minds, products like Barbie dolls, etc.. insidiously brainwash a child so much that sadly enough, many dark skin beauties even come to actually believe they are not very good looking and wish they could bleach their skin.
Well, someone who just passed on and who is an icon (no names mentioned) is a prime example of this disease that plagues our global society.
Cultural Diversity , you say? Ha ! Don't make me laugh, pulllleeez !
To coin a very famous saying from Henry Ford , with slight change in reference to this topic:
You can have any colour you want, as long as it is ... WHITE !
93
« on: July 11, 2009, 22:38 »
Like everybody else here I also want the best deal for myself and contributors as a whole. ---
About voicing our opinions, that's great and everything but it's venting and little else---
. Change only happens when the entire group gets offended enough to take a collective action---
. And even then, some of the sites still don't care. ---
And after all of the complaining how many of you still go along with whatever raw deal is dished out?---
thanks for elaborating on your comments. sometimes it's hard to know whether you're simply being neutral or taking a stronger position. i agree, many of what we do here is nothing more than venting. and you are even more correct to say that the sites don't really give a hoot. in the end, i really don't think too much will be achieved, as not many will actually go all the way . how far will you let someone push you ? each of us have our own limits. unfortunately, the sites know that not too many will be there if it's an ultimatum. i think the problem is most of us are very easily distracted. take the DT situation. one moment everyone seems to be talking about the problem with no views to their new images. then DT comes up with some silly game and everyone forgets, except for what? 3 ppl... and we forget about that problem and is acting like some child getting a nintendo for christmas. the sites know how easy it is to push the button. most will do as simon says. someone once pointed out here, that when IS does something not so desirable, everyone seems to bitch on IS. But when it's SS or DT, doing the same crap, the noise is not that loud. i thought that was simply a very bias comment from one who was more or less sold on exclusiveness with IS. but now that it is happening with DT, i think that person is so right is making such a comment. do i expect things to get better for us contributors as a whole? not really, not when there are so many gullible and easily sidetrack contributors. wth, let them play games, small things excite little minds.
94
« on: July 11, 2009, 15:15 »
yes, yes I'm sorry, appears that I'm misinformed. It's probably my unconscious interpolating a canon problem to all others. However, yes if not values inserted, nikon offers limited metering, but if you enter lens info, nikon dslr's can meter fully. I can happily accept such compromise if it allows me to use any lens nikon made.
Also, I still think that Nikon and Canon offers most variety of lenses. Since canon is not so backwards friendly, this leaves nikon. Am I wrong? While pentax and minolta do have some pretty decent lenses when it comes to quantity and quality, the big two triumphs.
Is it only Canon and Nikon lens that rule? If you believe that, I am sure many Sigma users will laugh at you; many who use Canon and Nikon bodies. Not quite really. While Nikon and Canon do the most advertising and most salesman , me included get spiffs for selling these two names, no optically informed technician in his right mind is going to dare say that only Canon and Nikon make the best optics. Pentax , Olympus (Zuiko) , Lumix (Zeiss, Leica), lenses have been making equally good optics. There is also the Summicron made by Leica that is far superiror to any of the Canon and Nikon glasses. Yet how many ads do you see , or how many Nikon and Canon proponents even know that lense exist? only you don't see as much marketing in magazines. Also, writers also get paid to write good things about the products that advertise the most with their magazines. This any marketing consutlant will politely reveal. It only appears that Canon and Nikon make the best glasses, but that is a marketing perception. Is a Porsche not as good as a Mercedez or a Volvo? HAs anyone heard of Aston Martin? You would be laughed out of the debate if you think that one brand makes the universe. Same thing that happened a long time ago when some American dude thinks that his TransAm is better than his friend's Camaro, and never knew that the CooperS and LotusElan existed, simply because he didn't see the ads on either of these much better British cars. Or touching much closer, in the old days, how often did you see an ad of Sinar ? or Rolleiflex or Leica? You still only saw Nikon and Canon. But we all knew we didn't have to rely on ads to tell us about Symmar lenses, or Leica , even though all we read about and carried were our Nikon Fs. We still also used the Leica as much. It's all a perception, you paid a lot of money for it, you'd better believe it's the best. That's why it cost more, you paid for the ads. As for Summicron, you pay for the glass alone, and not forthe ads or the spiff Nikon and Canon pay the camera sales people.
95
« on: July 11, 2009, 08:50 »
Some interesting ideas but you're thinking like a contributor not a stock agency business owner. If you were on the other side of the business you'd feel differently.
Change can only come with dialogue . I am sure some CEOs are reading these comments in forums, to get the feel of the current sentiments of contributors (and buyers, as I am sure there are some buyers here too). We cannot change what we have no control. We can, though, change the way we operate on our end. Be it cutting off a few agencies we don't agree with; increasing upload and concentrating on the one we like, or of course, joining some new ventures that may or may not succeed . We only know that anything can happen. One good example already is how Stockxpert went from one of the most promising and most cherished sites to a dead duck. So really, to think that some sites are immuned to fall from grace is absurd. Even if dialogue fails to bring some vital changes to the micro fabric, what have we got to lose? If we don't do what we are doing here to open dialogue and to get a feel of how our peers are feeling, we won't see any changes either. So really, at least, you can say we tried, we let off some steam, and if things get worse, we can all safely go home and find a job tossing burgers. If that happens, we can safely rejoice for not having Atilla wreck our lives , or receive another condescending rejection notice like , "this is a snapshot", "your image did not reach our level", and other assinine vagueries. have a good weekend all ! kick butt !
96
« on: July 11, 2009, 00:30 »
repeat:
You won't find any manual focus lenses you can put on a Canon SLR. You can put some older Nikon lenses on a Nikon DSLR, but the exposure meter won't function. This backwards compatibility is a unique and important feature of the Pentax DSLRs.
(quote/unquote: Peter Spiro , Istock contributor)
97
« on: July 11, 2009, 00:22 »
and here's an extract on sony and minolta backward compatibility: taken from http://photo.net/equipment/sony/========= The Sony system of digital single-lens reflex (SLR) bodies and lenses, built on the bones of the discontinued Konica/Minolta SLR system, is ideal for photographers with a cabinet full of Minolta-mount autofocus lenses. All Sony digital bodies are "small sensor" bodies and incorporate sensor-based image stabilization. Thus handheld photos taken with any compatible lens, including Minolta film-era lenses, will benefit from reduced camera shake. The Sony Alpha series is compatible with the numerous Minolta Maxxum A-mount lenses dating back to 1985 (96 lenses and 6 teleconverters). In addition, there are new Sony lenses, three of which have Carl Zeiss optical designs. ============= neversaynever, i wouldn't call 96 lenses little compatibility and diversity.
98
« on: July 11, 2009, 00:17 »
thanks. Also if you do it my way, you'd better stay away from pentax or sony or etcetera, because you will need lens compatibility and diversity, and canon&nikon duo are the ones with most lenses. by sacrificing autofocus, you may get brilliant pieces of shiny metal-not plastic- quality hardware. in that way, stay away from anything that could narrow down your options, such as d40, d60(which cannot use AF in anything other than lenses with autofocus motor built in to lens, which are pretty rare.) I would buy nikon if I had to buy second hand, because in terms of build quality nikon seems to be far better and should endure longer getting into your hands with far fewer creaks.(IMHO about last part, canon's pretty good too.)
Oops, not sure if I agree on this part with you.
Pentax lenses are back compatible with the K20D all the way back to the older lenses. Also , the K20D has the body stablization as opposed to Nik and Can which has stabilization in the lenses.
I don't know about Sony, but I did remember the salesman saying the Sony is back compatible to Minolta lenses as well.
Unless you mean something else when you say lens diversity and compatibility.
neversaynever that's a misinformation what you said about Pentax and Sony.. here's an extract from Peter Spiro , a photographer with Istock. taken from his webpage: http://ca.geocities.com/spirope/pentlens.html=========== One of the great things about the Pentax system is that every bayonet mount lens ever made by Pentax (going back to 1975) can still be used with a high degree of functionality on the most modern Pentax SLR. These lenses can be focussed manually, and used in aperture priority automatic exposure. (Nikon is the only other brand which has allowed its older lenses to be used on modern autofocus cameras, but generally with less metering capability then Pentax.) Hence, it is worthwhile keeping track of the tests of the older lenses. Lenses last much longer than cameras, and many of the older lenses are available in the used market. Pentax autofocus cameras even provide focus confirmation when used with older manual focus lenses: a green diamond lights up in the viewfinder to indicate the point of correct focus. In the first generation autofocus bodies, the SF series, there was even an arrow that showed what direction the focus ring should be turned in manually to attain focus. (One important point that should be noted: some non-Pentax brand K-mount lenses have protrusions that will cause them to get stuck when put on an autofocus camera. Ricoh program lenses are especially dangerous. No non-Pentax lens should be put on a Pentax autofocus camera until it has been carefully examined.) As of December 2004, Pentax has two digital SLR models on the market. They should be given credit for maintaining a greater degree of lens compatibility than any other manufacturer. Any K-mount lens made since 1975 can be used to give aperture priority auto-exposure on a Pentax DSLR with an extra push of a button. Why is this important? For some kinds of photography (still lifes, scenics, architecture), manual focussing is still ideal, and if you are going to focus manually, it is preferable to have a lens that its designed for it. Nothing beats the smooth precision of the focussing ring on a Pentax M or A lens. Autofocus lenses are made with a much looser mechanism, in order to allow the motors to turn them easily. For this reason, the lens elements are often less well aligned, and optical quality is lower as a result. You won't find any manual focus lenses you can put on a Canon SLR. You can put some older Nikon lenses on a Nikon DSLR, but the exposure meter won't function. This backwards compatibility is a unique and important feature of the Pentax DSLRs. =============== this article is quite dated but it still applies with the latest K7 pentax and it's predecessor 14.6MP K20D.
99
« on: July 10, 2009, 19:28 »
what's even more ridiculous is the price of tickets nowadays? front seat tickets for hubby and wife , no kids incl of cos, which kid wants to see Paul, lol? so, that's pretty close to a grand for a concert.
i wonder how much it cost for a kid to see Britney , does anyone know? if it's 300 bucks too, it's no wonder some kids had to steal daddy's credit card . or worse, some poor dad has to rob a store to pay for the 5 kids to go to one of Britney's concert, lol.
and if daddy o insists on the kids staying home and wait for her live in concert video, wo heavens think of the silent treatment daddy has to face for a month.
thank goodness i am not at the age of breeding anymore, lol.
100
« on: July 10, 2009, 16:57 »
Lennon would 've no doubt been more user friendly
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
