|
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 - Artemis
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
76
« on: November 12, 2011, 15:37 »
So essentially we don't disagree...
I love Gursky's work, think he's a great artist and like this picture too; whether its worth $4.3 million, probably not. But are Vincent Van Gogh's sunflowers worth the $39 million they sold for? Are all the great masters worth the enormous amounts payed for them?
It's an industry with artificially high prices, just like in the music, fashion, sports, etc. industries... technically its maybe, probably all not worth it, but there are peeps out there rich and crazy enough...
77
« on: November 12, 2011, 14:56 »
Microstock is as artistic as any ancient Greek vase painting or medieval religious fresco. It serves much the same purpose -- to illustrate in ways that please.
Yes, it is the handmaiden of commerce and one can find plenty of fault with that, but it doesn't mean it's not artistic. As opposed to Art.
Likewise "art' shouldnt be judged using the same commercial driven standards as stock.  I'm not denying there's microstock work that has artistic value; but i also see very often that when someone uses a somewhat artistic lighting and slaps some filter on top of it everyone starts calling it 'art' made by a great 'artist'. It just strikes me many people only can look at photography through stock glasses.
78
« on: November 12, 2011, 14:05 »
*snip*
This is one thing I like about microstock. Sure, it's not fine art in any sense, but it is an artistic product that rises or falls according to its appeal and utility in a purer way than any single on the pop charts.
c'mon, microstock has nothing to do with an 'artistic product'; its about flat commerce, and the more commercial it is the better it sells. It's only 'appeal' is its commercial value (and its often 'the tackier the better' too)
79
« on: November 08, 2011, 16:21 »
That's exactely how i understood it too Warren.
I'm opted out and got the cut.
80
« on: November 08, 2011, 11:48 »
I always loved DT for their transparency but now i'm really ticked off; I have to pay as much as 20% of my sub royalty for referrals from a program i'm not even enrolled in?! And they "forgot" to announce it?
Bah!
81
« on: November 07, 2011, 23:37 »
I just checked (with the prehistoric IE computer at work) and everything looks and loads fine here.
The only thing i noticed a while ago already is that when i check my 'approved' section, the download numbers are totally off.
82
« on: October 29, 2011, 10:20 »
I never got the finesse of it either.
My treasure map couldnt be found on istock when searching for 'treasure map' because i had the keywords treasure and map separately, but not 'treasure map' , which seems to be a separate term in the CV.
It's a non-intuitive, annoying system.
83
« on: October 23, 2011, 13:45 »
Thanks a lot for the tips and advice y'all !! I also thought using the eyeballs was ok ...prints always looked a tiny bit darker but still ok, but i felt there was a slight magenta hue... + the one i borrowed the colorimeter from kept saying i was crazy to trust on my eyes... I'm about back to go back to the eyeball settings though... I checked the test images, but still was unsure (maybe they ARE ok but im so used to my previous settings i cant believe they are? I doubt it but am not sure anymore after seeing all those different hues passing on my screen..) ...so after watching the youtube video's and changing + unplugging all other USB's i tried to recalibrate, this time using the advanced settings instead of the 'easy' before. First issue is on this imac afaik i cant change RGB settings, brightness etc, so i had to skip these steps. I let the colorimeter do its calibration thing... and now instead of dark and dirty yellow im stuck with dark and very magenta  A totally different result than the calibration yesterday. (i did calibrate to 5K instead of 6.5K before). Mayve this is part of the issue?  The luminance i have is way off from the target (and got no clue how to change or affect it). Although setting it lower i'd probably lose even more 'pop' and lightness... I feel like throwing the damned thing out of the window, make a couple of prints and just compare to see whats right. Pretty sure it wont be the settings Eye One selected....
84
« on: October 22, 2011, 13:54 »
I should have done it a long time ago, but i just borrowed an X-rite Eye One colorimeter to calibrate my screen. (before it was set to imac's sRGB IEC61966 color profile).... i was prepared for 'some' difference, but holy shitters! Seriously... Everything looks AWFULLY dirty yellow-greenish now, it lost it's pop and is now dull, dark and dirty yellow(ish). I read on the internet that this tool is very reliable, but i somehow can't believe this is right... So i was wondering, anyone else been using Eye One...? And is it really so reliable? Were you also shocked at the result? (i'm ashamed to admit i know very little about color management... what would be the best way to check if this is what its supposed to be?) Merci
85
« on: October 19, 2011, 22:29 »
oh god...a comprehensive list sounds like you have many partners; i thought it was only the 2 announced so far.  I hate this so much (my pics popping up on places i have no control or knowledge about); so far Veer is the only one doing PP's where i still have a port...guess i'll see after the comprehensive list...
86
« on: October 18, 2011, 09:27 »
holy frijoles... there's been a big change indeed ... the ones i had on top of the searches are nowhere to be found on the first 10 pages... 
87
« on: October 17, 2011, 20:59 »
Ahaa, i digged around in "about' and contactinfo, not in help... It must be Corbis, thus Veer. So far for keeping their promise about keeping us posted about new partners
88
« on: October 17, 2011, 19:12 »
I just found my images on Matton Images (grrr! ); does anybody know who they are or whom they're partnered with? I submit only to SS, iS, BigStock, Veer , DT and Stockfresh and am opted out of PP's where possible... i wonder...
89
« on: October 10, 2011, 18:46 »
Little OT:
Anybody has some personal experience with Wacom Inkling? For me it looks too great to be true. Still waiting to hear about some glitches.
http://www.wacom.com/en/Products/Inkling.aspx
Edit: Sorry - it's not available yet. It was supposed to be in shops in September.
I was also very interested in this one so did some more reading (and watching) on it. The biggest downside for me is that there's no option to erase mistakes while sketching...i've also read reviews that werent too happy about the receiver; it seems it can be a bit tedious (absolutely nothing can be in front of it, you have to stay away a certain distance, but cant move too far away from it either..).
90
« on: October 04, 2011, 16:12 »
Another whiskey lover here 5 years ago i went on a whiskytour in Scotland and since then i'm sort of collecting whiskeys.. I love the fruitier Speyside whisky's like Cardhu and Cragganmore but i can apreciate the Island whisky's too. Did you know btw that a whisky on the rocks is not a whisky with ice, but with a cold pebble from the river? At least i was told so by a funny old Scot Jack D. and J&B is a totally different category, best to be mixed with cola ;P
91
« on: October 01, 2011, 15:45 »
I also think that for many of us its just a given now...
The double standards (in really every aspect), the nepotism, the broken promises, the neverending greed,....
We've complained, been angry and frustrated, endlessly lamented about it... it doesnt change a thing, so each personally did what they felt is best and moved on...
I personally couldnt care less anymore, i know how they are and i'm not wasting anymore anger or frustration on them...
92
« on: October 01, 2011, 15:28 »
Another one jumping in to sing praise  Imho $0.25 is still a bit on the low side (the lowest of all sites i contribute, or am forced to contribute to actually...) but i decided to give it a shot. So refreshing to see there's still agencies there who take our concerns at heart and really listen. (but im sure you know that by now  ) I hope Veer will continue to grow (and contrary to other agencies' opinions think the power of contributor networking is not to underestimate). Kudos.
93
« on: September 29, 2011, 17:34 »
But if you have the market share that iS once did, I don't think its possible to grow much, in this business. Getty pressured them to grow or get slapped on the wrist, and that forced their hand with all these changes.
Imho its quite the contrary... there is a GIGANTIC grow potential.
When i hear people ( as in not involved in the advertising or editorial industry) around me they mostly dont even know stock exists, or have vaguely heard about it. When they need pics for their website, flyers, newsletter, schoolwork etc. they pull them off google (or, in best case, hire a photographer).I think there's a huge portion of marketshare in students, housemoms making scrapbooks, small local entrepeneurs etc who havent discovered stock yet waiting out there.
94
« on: September 29, 2011, 10:57 »
There was a time when things were relatively simple & linear around here, from a Content perspective: we would grow the collection exponentially on a monthly basis, we would inspect those files from our contributor base & welcome them into our corpus. End of story, frankly. Now, to ensure that we fully support all efforts related to International Development at iStockphoto & sync with Marketing initiatives in a much more structured fashion, it is time for Content to readdress a thing or two as to how we interact with our ever growing community of artists.... in order to make sure that we reach the next level of our evolution.
We all know what their 'evolution' focusses on; so i'm guessing this cant be good. What feels good is having the luxury to 'couldnt care less' 
95
« on: September 29, 2011, 09:19 »
They are remorseful from FB:
We know some of you took offense to the last post, and we apologize, as it was not our aim to insult any of our friends. Our statement was meant to be interpreted that the right equipment can help you capture amazing images. We appreciate the passion you have for photography and your gear, and know that a great picture is possible anytime and anywhere.
96
« on: September 28, 2011, 07:15 »
I'm guessing dl's/month is an important factor too. When i check the 'my portfolio' page its sorted by dl's/month (mixed with new files), and 'most popular' files on my contributor profile page are also the ones with highest dl's/month.
Monthly uploads also seem to be a factor. The moment i stopped uploading everything dropped like a brick.
97
« on: September 27, 2011, 16:00 »
Veer appreciates your feedback and we are listening. We are working through some new scenarios for our subscription model and will announce an adjustment within the next day or so. Stay tuned. And meantime, keep the ideas flowing.
Aaron
That sounds good. Changes needed from my point of view:
- don't offer ELs as subscription at all. If somebody needs an EL, he needs to pay the full price.
- introduce a competitive minimum amount per download (around the competition: DT $0,35, SS $0,38, 123RF $0,36). If you can top that, much better.
- don't undercut other (better paying) sites with your pricing. If you offer the top commission (why not do something like $0,50), than fine, let's drag customers over.
- finally: if you do these changes, allow those of us who already opted out back in again 
That sums it up pretty much for me too! Especially the 2nd point. Getting anything below a certain amount feels like an insult....(for me thats anything below $0.30-0.35)
98
« on: September 27, 2011, 09:58 »
I remain out too, but nobody received opt out email confirmation!!!!? Why such a complicated way of opting out by email??? Why don't you include an option on the veer site??? That's not fair!!! I never received the email information about the subscription plan and when I'm login on Veer I don't see any advert about the subscription plan!!! So, do you planing to trick people by hiding the information and avoid them to opt out easily ans clearly ? Then after the 21st october, the people who don't get the information will be f....and forced to sell subscription? Do you think it's a good way to work together, you the seller and us the photographers??
*snip*
While i also don't agree with the terms for the subs to me it really doesnt look like they want to deceive us by not sending out a proper warning (they also dont have a history of pulling such tricks; i think most of us are pretty happy with their transparency). I do see a big banner announcing subscriptions when i log in into my submitter account (dashboard section), they sent an email (strange you didnt get it though) and its here on the forums.... They want to give existing contributors the option to opt-out, but probably dont want to implement it on site because its only a temporary offer. I know i sound like a true cheerleader, but i really have only good experiences with them.
99
« on: September 24, 2011, 13:19 »
I think this can be for court...You might well be right, but in what country are you going to sue them?
100
« on: September 24, 2011, 13:15 »
As the deadline approaches i made my final decision. I'm not ditching them completely but have started to deactivate anything thats worth something... it hurt to deactivate flames but in the end i'll feel better having my good stuff only on sites that dont give me nausea I'm so tempted to put a poisonous message in the title field of the remaining files and have that hauled over to TS (my mini private war), but i guess it would mean a certain ban, so i'll just bend over and grab their mere pennies for my not-so-good files.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
