|
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 - Albert Martin
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
101
« on: July 20, 2010, 15:07 »
Whatever... They probably think you should have rainbow background there ;-)
It is no big deal - who can create is creating, who can't do the reviews!
;-)
102
« on: July 20, 2010, 02:42 »
I am also discovering that it has a lot to do with the shot itself... I accidentally (long story) attended a local ceremony for welcoming home some troops over the weekend and got a shot that no one else did. Not including MS sales (which were all subs), I've made a little over $400 from this image in just direct sales to papers and TV stations:
Great photo!
103
« on: July 20, 2010, 02:24 »
50mm 1.8 II is much better choice regarding price and quality over 50mm 1.4.
There is no significant gain in having 1.4 over 1.8.
Try this trick:
Push ISO up... Then focus, and after that just get your ISO back to shoot properly. Or, use LiveView on Canon 550D - it works amazingly well and focus manually!
BTW, if there is no some malfunction you should get your focus exactly as seen on that 3" LCD display on your camera.
104
« on: July 18, 2010, 01:40 »
I wanted to make a calendar at Zazzle with NASA images. As discussed before, their images can be used by others for commercial use, as they are considered public domain.
This is what they say at their website:
Photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, photographs may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.
Now, when I see images credited like this:
"NASA Earth Observatory image created by Jesse Allen, using EO-1 ALI data provided courtesy of the NASA EO-1 team."
or
"NASA image courtesy Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team at NASA GSFC."
Are these also public domain?
I'm confused because it seems most images now have credits like these. Even the famous "Blue marble" series have "Credit: Reto Stockli, NASA Earth Observatory" and even some Hubble images have dubious credits.
There are very FEW images which you can use as you wanted now. You must look harder and even ask for clarification on that. Some authors gave their images to PD and some don't.
105
« on: July 14, 2010, 11:19 »
198 ports? doesnt say much at all, had they taken the yop say 1000 ports it would have been much more interesting.
Do you really need to look that far down a list? Elections are usually forecast by asking a very individuals how they voted as they left the stations. The 198 ports represent, according to JP, over a half million of the best images. To me that's a very good sample size, especially off the top. There seems to be a desire to disbelieve any stat or indication that the micro business might be on a plateau. Which of course gives the opportunity for a decline.
right the sample size is certainly significant, but not random . an even more telling stat is
"Also, in the past 14 months approximately 29% of all the downloads iStock has made were of images belonging to these 198 individuals.
"
so 5% of contribuimages have 29% of sales - thus confirming sturgeon's law that " 90% of anything is crap"
Well... My opinion is that ALL is crap - but there is rising market for that crap and that is all what matters... ;-)
106
« on: July 13, 2010, 15:09 »
Absolute WHAT?
Are you kidding even mentioning that 'agency' here?
LOOOL Sorry if I offended you..
Won't mention THAT 'agency' here ever again 
;-)
107
« on: July 12, 2010, 02:37 »
It is nice to have contributors who will sell their vectors as M sized jpg images.
What do you think who profits from such pricing?
108
« on: July 12, 2010, 02:04 »
Absolute WHAT?
Are you kidding even mentioning that 'agency' here?
109
« on: July 12, 2010, 02:00 »
Well... I am sure that THEY are WATCHING this ;-)
110
« on: July 07, 2010, 16:19 »
Such rejections come to that they wish to moderate their collection on subjective basis! That won't work well for their business.
Only what I approve is rejection due to technical issue. All rejections based on subjective basis are BS.
111
« on: July 06, 2010, 05:31 »
Crrestock? Again 25c? Industry standard?
WOW!
What a bunch of stupid words and numbers ;-) Industry standard for me is about 35c average on 15 agencies...
I don't upload to those who are paying less than 30c...
Well... I will upload to Crestock and accept that 25c IF Crestock pays me $1 per upload (rejected images included).
How about that?
Masterfile, you will fail on this!
112
« on: June 18, 2010, 07:16 »
What is the point in complaining?
They will anyway do what they 'think' is appropriate...
113
« on: June 17, 2010, 02:26 »
HO-HO-HO...
Says Santa Claus in June ;-)
114
« on: June 05, 2010, 16:36 »
I'd go for bargain... 550D + some lights and sell that 450D as used... You'd have all you need in that bargain ;-)
115
« on: June 05, 2010, 16:21 »
As far I expect, there will be many web-size images downloaded in future... They will take them cheap and then show them to whole world via their websites...
The question is that if prices of that images will rise or not. As far I think, there will be necessity that images are sold in original size under some 'normal' prices...
This about 19 or so cents is really under any real sense for wast majority of contributors. Just think if you are pro and how much you must invest in your equipment every year or so. Will you get that investment back or not under not certain prices thus you can expect that prices will fall even more...
It is quite not an industry to invest in as startup for sure. But, some of us are already into it... Well, I hope we'll survive these crazy times!
116
« on: June 03, 2010, 04:37 »
Well... you might get that price for used and with over 60000 shutter releases ;-)
New? NO WAY yet...
117
« on: June 01, 2010, 19:41 »
So?
You would like to stay there and earn money under your terms? Interesting point of view!
I'd say they have all right to do what they want if they have content suppliers. Well, we are here on the main point.
YOU are content suppliers to Fotolia and YOU can ask for some answers ONLY if you are serious and show their management that you are not kidding.
HOW? I really don't now how all you can get along about anything!
Good luck with cents per download. I won't bother at all with Fotolia!
118
« on: June 01, 2010, 19:16 »
11 sales for me via polylooks... Quite nice start. Hope that will grow!
119
« on: May 31, 2010, 17:36 »
Well, Dook, the problem is our buyers are from all around the world, and most of them don't care if I write that I am Cetnik, Ustasa or Muslim. But Whitechild...hmm. As you could see, even some people on this forum thought I am a skinhead.
Well... That about 'skinhead' is because you are bold-shaved ;-)
120
« on: May 31, 2010, 00:52 »
I don't see any of it said!
BlackChild, WhiteChild, YellowChild or WhateverChild is not racist at all!
First people must adopt that NICKNAME is what it is - just a nickname.
Those who made you change are thinking that anything anywhere is racism... And they are wrong.
I am sick of double moral standards in many countries.
It is 21st Century people! Why would anyone think that someone's nick is racist?
What a case from nothing - it is stupid indeed!
For those three 'smarties' - live YOUR life and don't whine about others people personal details with no matter if they are white or black.
you miss the point ENTIRELY -- no one here thought the name indicated racism - the problem is that the BUYER mightand that's too big a risk to take;
I don't believe that may be a problem. If there is what buyer wants then buyer will buy with no matter what your nick is! So, if there is such buyer I am really sad to hear that.
121
« on: May 29, 2010, 19:21 »
Real stock photographers doesn't need to pay to get their images online.
Think about that!
122
« on: May 29, 2010, 19:06 »
I don't see any of it said!
BlackChild, WhiteChild, YellowChild or WhateverChild is not racist at all!
First people must adopt that NICKNAME is what it is - just a nickname.
Those who made you change are thinking that anything anywhere is racism... And they are wrong.
I am sick of double moral standards in many countries.
It is 21st Century people! Why would anyone think that someone's nick is racist?
What a case from nothing - it is stupid indeed!
For those three 'smarties' - live YOUR life and don't whine about others people personal details with no matter if they are white or black.
123
« on: May 15, 2010, 01:22 »
First of all:
There is no name of 'major TV network' so this case is not clear enough. Why not use name of that network so we all know who is in need for free photographs?
Nothing is for free on this planet - so why they want free photos? Maybe you can get some second of their advertising commercial time so you can then sell that to those who need it!
Anyhow it is very big BS.
124
« on: May 14, 2010, 13:26 »
Guys try Zoonar...
They take contributors all over the world.
And Zoonar sells images through partner programs including Polylooks.
The best thing: Zoonar will pay you the same for Polylooks sale as you are Polylooks direct contributor.
BTW, now Zoonar pays 0.15 EUROs for any approved image on Polylooks!
125
« on: May 14, 2010, 13:19 »
It seems like marketing is busy on Featurepics...
They are trying to boost sales as it seems.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
