MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - Striker77s

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8
26
One of the purposes of Paypal is that it allows you to pay someone without giving them your credit card info. Essentially the seller is not able to get your card number and charge what ever they want. I don't see how someone could have gotten your credit card from just knowing your Paypal e-mail address. Other wise you could just go to e-bay and get thousands of e-mails and steal money from their paypal accounts. I'm sorry that you got scammed.

Mark

27
iStockPhoto.com / Re: slow day at istock yesterday
« on: October 06, 2006, 10:25 »
This entire week has been horrible for me.  :-\

Mark

28
If you can get more than $500 in five years, I agree that you should definitely not sell it for so cheap.  Buy I wouldn't just say no offer him a price you are willing to accept, like $2,000 or what ever you feel it is worth.  They just may take the bait.

Mark

29
Bigstock.com / Re: New Descriptions
« on: October 05, 2006, 09:40 »
That is silly.  I agree that some pictures require a good long explanation but others of simple objects obviously don't.  It just seems silly to me.  If the description isn't that great it is just going to hurt the photographer because he will sell less. 

Mark

30
General Stock Discussion / Re: Micro Stock Watcher
« on: October 05, 2006, 09:35 »
Yesterday mine stopped working also.  I guess we will have to wait for an update.  We will find out how good the support is.

Mark

31
That's weird ... and not a bit suspicious.

I assume that you have been selling the image Royalty Free. That means all the other people who have bought it (dozens? hundreds?) have the legal right to use it for certain specified purposes for as long as they want. So why should someone then want to pay $500 for 'all rights'? They certainly won't be able to have exclusive rights any more, and they can have no idea where the image may pop up.

On the other hand, if you have been selling it 'Rights Managed' then $500 is rather low. Just today I heard of someone who sold one of his Rights Managed images, through Alamy, for a mouth-watering $6'800.



I have sold a few images on Alamy and from what I can gather the average is below $500.  More than likely the $6,800 was for exlusive rights, meaning the photographer no longer has rights to sell the image.  From what I understand that is what FourSeasons is asking about.  If he sells the image he will no longer have the right to sell it or use it.  He is essentially giving up ownership to the image.  So the buyer can sell the image if wants as if it was his own.  Traditionally $500 is a low price to ask for those kind of rights, but in this time of change with microstocks I'm guessing it will become more common.  Only FourSeasons can decide if it is worth it.

Mark

32
Its really up to you.  Just figure out how long it would take at the current selling rate for that image to reach $500.  If it would take more than 5 years it might be worth it.  In 5 years the microstock market might change quite a bit.  My guess is it will get harder and harder to make money through microstocks because the quality and number of available images is only going up.  Good luck,

Mark

33
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: October 03, 2006, 17:26 »
Well, ok, they have a sensor cleaning lenspen now (i thought they were working on it last i looked).
http://www.lenspen.com/?cPath=1&products_id=SK-1&tpid=146

I never said 10 minutes several times a year was horrible...


Sorry I was being sarcastic. It just strikes me as odd that people fear the wet method so much, and sometimes protray it as some huge ordeal. It is really quite simple to do. But if the lenspen works for you, thats great. Personally I've heard several people complain about brushes but now that I looked at your link I realized that it is a wet method, just conviently located in a pen. Of course not changing out the brush or pad each time is a problem for me. And as far as price goes I paid about the same amount the link you gave for the lenspen, and more than likely mine will last longer. But I have to admit it does take a few minutes longer then the lenspen. ;)

Mark

34
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: October 03, 2006, 15:56 »
Lenspen $9 - can't beat it. Why mess with liquids and all that other muck?

Because it wasn't designed to clean micron sized particles off of a charged surface.  Sure it will get rid of large particles but it will leave a lot of the smaller particles on the sensor.  It is something to use in the field when you have to, but if you want to get it really clean the only proven method is the wet method.  It probably takes less than 10 minutes to complete and most people only have to do it every 4 months or so.  Is ten minutes 3 times a year all that horrible?

Mark

35
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: October 03, 2006, 09:36 »
I also use the Copperhill wet method.  It has worked very well for me.  Good luck.  The instructions are easy to use and it will remove about 95%+ of all spots.  I usally end up with 1 or 2 very small particles left.  So far I haven't found any method that works better. 

Mark

36
Microstock Services / Re: ProStockMaster
« on: September 27, 2006, 09:03 »
Looks interesting. I'm surprised it took this long for someone to come up with it.  There are plenty of people willing to spend the money on it.  Looking at the website I would guess that it isn't completely developed.  I may try the trial download to see how well it runs.  Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Mark

37
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: September 26, 2006, 12:23 »
Similar topic - I saw somewhere that recommended putting double sided tape inside your lens cap so that it grabs the dust when you have your lens cap on...


LOL. ;D

That is hilarious.

How would putting tape on a lens cap work??? ::)

The dust mostly comes when you change lenses and the cap would be on the lens.


I agree, putting double sided stotch tape on the lens cap to keep the sensor clean is hilarious.  Of course it was probably originally thought of to keep dust off the end of the lens and not the sensor. Somebody just got confused along the way. :)

Dust mostly comes from moving parts within camera and not from changing lens.  At least the dust that adheres to the sensor.  The small micron sized particles are pulled in by the static pull of the sensor.  The wear and tear of the shutter probably creates the most dust.  That is why Canon announced it made changes to the shutter and mirror box of its new 400D to reduce sensor dust.  You can read more about it on
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos400d/

That is why people who never change their lens still get the same amount of dust on their sensors as those who change their lenses all the time.  Of course if you are changing lenses in a blowing dust bowl that might be another story.

Mark

38
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: September 26, 2006, 09:31 »
Striker - I think he meant they charge 55 per year (ie you pay up front but get upto 4 cleans.

Ok, I'm an idiot.  Thanks for pointing that out :)

Mark

39
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: September 26, 2006, 08:52 »
OMG....chills went up my spine when I saw the title of this thread. Sensors are DELICATE things...using tape.....is a HUGE no-no.

Yes the sensors are delicate but you aren't cleaning the sensor.  You are cleaning the AA filter in front of the sensor.  It is just a piece of coated glass and it is quite tough.  People fret over ruining their sensor or scratching it.  Actually it would be impossible to do either with pec pads and other similar devices.  The reason scotch tape is a no no, is because it will leave residue.  You are trying to clean the sensor not add more junk to it, and you can imagine that the residue tape will leave would be hard to remove.  Cleaning the sensor is really no big deal. The specgrabber is quite useless to.  The vast majority of the dust on your sensor comes from mechanical (ie shutter) wear and tear inside your camera.  The dust is in the micron range and can't be seen with the naked eye.  So how can you grab what you don't see?  The best way is the wet method and it really is quite safe.

55 years ago there was no such thing as a digital camera.  The world was struggling with simple punch cards on computers let alone a digital camera.  So how can your shop have that much experience.  Most likely they have been cleaning sensors for less than decade.  But your shop probably realized that cleaning sensor is extremely easy and they probably make a killing off the service.  It is quite safe and they have little fear of ruining your sensor.  Most likely they use the process everyone else does, with eclipse and pec pads.

Mark

40
General Stock Discussion / Re: Makes you think....
« on: September 25, 2006, 16:28 »
I bet the photographers who disdain microstock sites have this luxury because they are already making a comfortable living from their work. I wonder if they would keep these principles if they weren't bringing any money in.

Of course it is. Dpreview has many examples of this. Mention microstocks on dpreview and you will have a huge number of people telling you that the microstock system is of the devil and will destroy photography. I believed it for a while and submitted images to Alamy. Then I actually seriously looked into microstock, ran some numbers and realized its earning potention. I don't have any regrets. In my opinion is one main reason for resistance to microstocks, and that is change.

Many people hate change. Their are photographers who have spent many decades building up their portfolios just so they could be considered in joining places like Corbis and Getty images. Others have spent a lot of time with licensed images and really protect every use of their images. They spent a lot of money and time advertising their skills and images. Selling an image for $5 royalty free is an outrageous and ridiculous idea because if they did their income would be less than 10% of what it is now (At least that is what they think) When Istock started most of the contributors were people with simple point and shoots and the quality was less than top quality. No one felt threatened. Now many contributors to microstocks are submitting highly polished images that easily threaten many professional photographers. They see all their decades of work being thrown away. What they don't realize is its a numbers game. They can make just as much money if not more. But many photographers can't get over the idea of selling an image that once used to collect $500 for a one time use and selling it for $5 royalty free. They feel completely cheated. I finally got over that idea and all I care about is income. Not being a full time professional, microstocks fits me well. Now if you have a lot of very unique images places like Alamy is the way to go. It is just like the switch from film to digital. When digital first came out almost all the old photographers who spent years perfecting the art of processing film in the dark room complained bitterly. Saying it was fake and not real, the quality wasn't there, etc, etc. Now digital photography has taken over and businesses based on film are dying (Kodak). Many camera makers don't even produce film bodies anymore. Sure film is around and is still king in large format arena but most have accepted digital photography. As designers and ad agencies use microstocks more and more eventually the photography community will come around and accept it. The professionals who's income is base on macrostock will either adapt or go away. The only place for macrostock photography will be places like Gettys and Corbis, and even they will be hit with some drop in sales.

Just my rambling opinion.

Mark

41
Cameras / Lenses / Re: Sensor cleaning and scotch tape
« on: September 25, 2006, 15:58 »
The wet method has been proven by many people to be the best method.  I haven't heard of one single case of someone damaging their sensor by cleaning it with the wet method.  Many people worry about it, but it is safe, quick and easy.  Read up about it, buck up and do it.  It really isn't that big of a deal.  I use a Ecipse solution with pec pads. 

Good luck,
Mark

42
General Stock Discussion / Re: Micro Stock Watcher
« on: September 22, 2006, 08:33 »
Thanks for bringing it up again.  Great little program, I paid the $15.

Mark

43
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istockphoto in now cost uneffective for me
« on: September 21, 2006, 17:00 »
without encouraging the photographers to only upload a few outstanding ones, and only that. Making the pending time long, and making the uploading cumbersome is part of this strategy, I think.

Although I understand your reasoning I feel it is flawed. The casual photographer who isn't worried about time will continue to submit his occasional batches of images. It is a hobby and he isn't overly worried about wasting some extra time. But professional photags and serious hobbyist who depend upon Istock for a part of their income will be discouraged. Time is extremely important to them and they will be turned off by the new submittal process. So essentially Istock will cut out those photographers who submit a lot of images and spend a lot of time on photography. My guess is that the quality will go down not up, because serious photographers will be less likely to submit.

I think the real reason is Getty Images. There submittal process is quite different. I'm not a member so I'm not 100% on their submission process but from what I understand they take a larger cut than some other macro-stock sites but they do the keywording and catagorizing. Essentially their strategy has been to put a good deal of emphases on excellent keywording and they do this by doing it in house so they can control it. This makes it easier for the photographer and designers. The only downside to it is photographers get a smaller commission. This has worked extremely well for Getty, and they are trying to push this policy on Istock. Since they can't lower the photags commission anymore (Its already the lowest in the industry) they decided to implement a submission process that places a higher burden on the photographer but hopefully produces better keywording. Personally I think they are going to fail and give up on the system or at least make some significant changes. But it won't happen for a while and they aren't going to be hurt all that much by it because they have enough images to run their business without a significant amount of new images. Until they change it I have no desire to submit images, hopefully the exclusives will push back to.

Mark

Mark

44
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS Sales
« on: September 19, 2006, 17:59 »
I forgot to explain why. Their search engine traditionally displays the newest images first. Hence the newer the image to more likely it is to be seen an bought. I have't checked but apparently they changed the default search order but buyers can still choose the option to sort by the upload date. Good luck.

Mark

45
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS Sales
« on: September 19, 2006, 17:50 »
It is common to get a large amount of downloads when images are first uploaded.  About a month after an image has been uploaded the download rate drops by more than 50%.  I guess their system encourages new uploads and rewards photographers that continually upload.

Mark

46
General Stock Discussion / Re: Who's primary income is from stock?
« on: September 08, 2006, 11:23 »
I know of someone who lives in South America (Argentina) and 90%+ of his income is microstocks.  The cost of living is South America is quite cheap in American dollars.  So I think location can have a big effect on how easy it is to live off of microstocks.  I live in Los Alamos, NM (USA) and the cost of living is high.  Anything below $70,000 salary for a family and it becomes very difficult to make ends meet. 

Mark

47
Computer Hardware / Re: What type of monitor are you using?
« on: September 06, 2006, 09:01 »
I use a 21.3" Samsung 213T LCD with a Spyder calibration.  Fantastic monitors.  The only issue I had was the brightness, I had to turn it down a bit because I kept underexposing my images.  If I had the money I would get their 24" monitor (244T).  A friend of mine has one and it is great to work with Photoshop.  I held onto my CRT for many years, but after spending almost 2 years with my LCD I wouldn't go back.  On the other hand I've seen a lot of horrible cheap LCDs.  Many people buy the cheap LCDs for $150, the color gamut and contrast on those are absolutely horrible.  If you ever buy an LCD, splurge a little or you are going to hate them.

Mark

48
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock is Ignoring Me
« on: September 03, 2006, 09:03 »
Yes everyone complains about them including me.  Just poke through the history and you find plenty of "IstockPhoto stinks" threads.  But a major fact is they bring a significant amount of income to many of us so we deal with it.  You have to decide for yourself if the income from Istock is worth the hassell.  I wouldn't expect them to get any easier to work with soon.

Mark

49
He is just an honest business man how dare you move your own images. LOL, wow. The stupidity of some people. He wasn't even smart enough to download the images to his own server. Of course he was also taking your bandwidth. Just goes to show that people feel entitled to things these days, free music, software and images.

Mark

50
Cameras / Lenses / Re: What type of camera are you using?
« on: August 25, 2006, 23:47 »
My biggest grip with the Canon 10D is the focus.  It seems to back focus a lot.  I've lost a lot of excellant shots because of that darn focus.  Yes I've done the ruler test and it always turns out spot on.  The 10D just isn't consistant enough.  From what I hear the 20D/30D focusing system is only marginally better.  My second grip is the resposiveness of the camera.  But I have gotten a lot of excellant shots and I'm pleased with the image quality and have no regrets buying the camera.  I think the 40D will be released in May-July of next year.  And I'm positive it will be a major update unlike the changes from the 20D to the 30D.  Besides they just announced the new Digic III processing chip so they suggests it will be even faster. 

Mark

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors