|
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 - BaldricksTrousers
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 206
226
« on: November 12, 2017, 04:55 »
Yes, I think they've made some adjustment to it to allow unlisted keywords to be marked correct. I just uploaded something else and a "mark as correct" option appeared.
227
« on: November 12, 2017, 03:27 »
The worst problem I've got with it is that it forces you to remove keywords it doesn't like before you submit. This means that place-names and other stuff that aren't in its "controlled vocab" can't be used.. It rejects Dafna, which is the equivalent of Manhattan for Qatar, and it rejects Qatari, which is the equivalent of American. So people searching on those terms are not going to see my latest images. I doubt if correct scientific binomials for plants and animals will get through, either (e.g Phoenix theophrasti - the Cretan date palm - or Aeshna mixta for the migrant hawker dragonfly). Granted the number of people searching by Linnaean binomials will be minimal, but why prevent accurate descriptions being given?
228
« on: November 01, 2017, 06:35 »
You have to fit in with whatever they say. It's their website.
229
« on: October 31, 2017, 03:27 »
watch a few big corporations take over everything and keep finding ways to make more money from us. Was that really the way the internet was supposed to function?
No, it wasn't intended to be a business opportunity, it was intended to be a method of sharing information for the common good.
Quite. I read about it in the 1980s when I was thinking of going online (before Windows made it easy). There was a lot written about "Netiqette" (a word I haven't seen in a couple of decades), and how to avoid clogging up the limited Web bandwidth. One point (made rather naively, perhaps) was that even though it would theoretically be easy to make money online it would be bad netiquette to do so and would bring down derision and contempt on your head if you attempted it.
230
« on: October 29, 2017, 04:00 »
That "program" has been going for many, many years. I'm not sure why someone thought it was new last year. The impact will obviously be different for everybody, depending on how good their keywording is - but as I understand it, you're just handing images over to people who don't know what's in them, rather like the old "wikiwarrior" attacks on keywords at iStock, where they were quite likely to remove a correct keyword and put in a false one (I had flat-leaf parsley renamed as cilantro in one once and as changing it back was against the rules I just left it).
231
« on: October 25, 2017, 03:31 »
Ah TLRs.....it's been years since I used my Yashica D. I really like the waist level viewfinders on TLRs - such big screens and there's nothing like viewing directly through glass. The EVFs on my M4/3 cameras do not give the same pleasurable experience.
Yup, they really are a joy to use. I've got a Mamiya C33 and a Mamiya C220. The Sekor lenses are great. I know an old-timer who started out with a Mamiya TLR and saved up to get a Hasselblad. His wife reluctantly agreed to the costly upgrade and he never dared tell her that he found the Sekor lenses were better then the Zeiss lenses on the 'blad, Mamiyas are light, too, with long lenses because the extension is in the bellows rather than in a huge metal tube.
232
« on: October 24, 2017, 15:46 »
It;s not just the rollei that is identifiable, the Zeiss Jena lens with the Exacta mount is even more obvious.
The twin lens camera is a Seagull, and the other two are an Exacta vx500 and a Kodac Retina with a folding lens.
I guess I will submit as editorial ( I allready got the third rejection and I am not going to insist anymore )
I am a little frustrated about this. good thing I only made just 3 concepts to test the waters...
Thank you all for explaining and helping
Haha! I skewered myself with that one, didn't I? But the Seagull might be the main problem, it was stil in production in China last time I looked (a few years ago now).
233
« on: October 24, 2017, 15:04 »
It;s not just the rollei that is identifiable, the Zeiss Jena lens with the Exacta mount is even more obvious.
234
« on: October 24, 2017, 15:00 »
Well, it's the Afghan flag there, not the American one.
235
« on: October 21, 2017, 07:40 »
No deletions and my sales are down, too.... but the bigger hit has been a lack of higher-priced sales recently.
236
« on: October 21, 2017, 06:57 »
Sounds right to me. The author provides artwork, and he's responsible for its accuracy. The copyright is then transferred to the publisher. Make sure the terms of the transfer do not interfere with your decision to sell the image commercially elsewhere or seek proper compensation. Professors may not be fully aware of legalities and their implications.
Thanks for clarifying that. I'll definitely mention to the professor that I want to retain my full rights to the image and to let the publisher know that.
Someone buying usage rights from you can't impose restrictions on you that you haven't agreed to. So this client would not be able to supply the image to a third party with any sort of added restriction on your right to do whatever you like with it. If he gave any assurances then that would be his problem, not yours. To the best of my knowledge, the originator of a book provides the text and images to the publisher who then handles the layout which is passed on to the printer for platemaking. The copyright of a book is not transferred to the publisher, it rests with the author of the work (go and look in the front of pretty much any book and you will see the copyright notice). Just as the copyright of a photo doesn't transfer to the user who buys a licences to use the work. Of course, if you are not going to specify your rights in a written contract signed by the user then anything could happen.
237
« on: October 21, 2017, 04:45 »
Ive contacted a university research department and they got back to me this morning. The associate professor from the department said that he's writing a book and working with a publisher and he might be able to use my image in about a month's time (he's still deciding whether to go with an illustrated version of the book or a text-only version.)
Why is it that I just don't find this credible?
238
« on: October 20, 2017, 05:09 »
I use SmugMug as a repository for maybe 10% of my work (far too much to upload everything) ! Anyone wanting to take a look can find it here : https://frogfish.smugmug.com/ or cropped files on Instagram at @thedragonsfather
These images are mostly far too good for micro.
Yes, very nice shots. Maybe good for the Science Picture Library if there are a lot more - but just looking at various insects I note the absence of proper identifications. Of course, sorting out dragonflies and suchlike involves quite a bit of effort,
239
« on: October 20, 2017, 04:58 »
I'm not sure I can stand any more bad news 
240
« on: October 20, 2017, 04:57 »
Something incredible happened to me!!
Incredible would be a $80+ Extended License! Haven't seen one of those in a while.
Nah... It's not the money that's going to make us happy, as a wise man once warned us 
241
« on: October 18, 2017, 08:54 »
RPI has been steadily going down since 2007, now hovering just above $1.
.
Is that $1 per image per month? That's an outstanding return if it is. That's what I was looking at back at the peak, a long, long time ago.
242
« on: October 16, 2017, 07:30 »
I'm not convinced that being afraid you might lose thousands of dollars counts as a "moral dilemma"
243
« on: October 15, 2017, 05:50 »
Re Photoshelter - what you would sell there would depend entirely on your own marketing skills. It's essentially a file storage site with sales potentiality built into it. It does get rid of the middle-man but you need to be able to reach potential buyers and direct them to your portfolio, which means a lot of work (also you need to set up a merchant account to receive credit card payments). I use it for file storage and file organisation but it's an expensive option for that (however, as I'm paying I console myself with the thought that it won't suddenly shut down and cut me off from my processed files).
FAA is another site where you're meant to do your own marketing, but I do get some sales from that without making any effort. There are long gaps between sales (with about 800 files there) but the income more than pays the hosting fees. Those who do good work and their own marketing may make a good sum from there.
244
« on: October 14, 2017, 02:07 »
Unpleasant reading. SS is the last site still delivering anything like a decent return for me.
245
« on: September 14, 2017, 03:39 »
submit a few in the middle of a stack of other submissions - don't they only look at one image per submission?
If you fail a submission they will start looking more closely at your subsequent submissions, as well as delaying the approval process. So it's not a good policy to try to hide stuff in the pile if you know it is sub-standard. I don't understand why glaciers would look "noisy" unless they do have "noise" in them, or why there should be a problem shooting them without under-exposing - but then there aren't a lot of glaciers to experiment with in Arabia.
246
« on: September 12, 2017, 05:11 »
One thing I've never seen mentioned is the sense of validation that comes from having other people think that your images are useful and usable. If hobby photography means taking photos to gloat over in a lonely room, or to inflict on long-suffering friends or relatives then it becomes a pretty sterile activity. After all, how much wall space do any of us have to hang our 25,000 photos on? If someone is willing to pay a dollar for an image then it shows unsolicited appreciation that says the hobbyist's effort was worthwhile and the sum involved is very much secondary.
So I wouldn't sneer at someone who is simply seeking approval of his work and not trying to make a living from it. The transfer of cash from pros to hobbyists may be galling but it's part of the job. And it's ironic to see the same hostility directed at new microstockers by old-timers, as was directed at us by the old-time pros a decade or so ago.
247
« on: September 11, 2017, 13:47 »
Well that's very interesting. Thanks for the info.
248
« on: September 11, 2017, 08:34 »
80,000 shutter actuations for this one (D750):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHrCI9eSJGQ
But a timelapse film like this is worth at least $10,000. Most likely much more if he sells some of the clips as stock.
How would he realise $10,000 (unless it's a contract up front)? Not on microstock, thats for sure.
249
« on: September 08, 2017, 13:20 »
Just wondering if timelapse photographers have wrecked their shutters with so many exposures. And how many exposures before the shutter dies on various cameras - or are they far more resilient than expected?
I replaced one of my camera's shutter mechanism. I believe that camera reached about 100k actuations, when it failed.
You could burn through 100,000 shots and not have very many videos to show for it. It could be a significant additional expense, though I don't know what a new shutter costs.
250
« on: September 08, 2017, 11:39 »
Just wondering if timelapse photographers have wrecked their shutters with so many exposures. And how many exposures before the shutter dies on various cameras - or are they far more resilient than expected?
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 206
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
