|
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 - robhainer
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
26
« on: October 11, 2015, 18:20 »
Does having guns in the White House with the president make him safer?
27
« on: October 11, 2015, 16:12 »
..........
There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids?......
I agree, that is why those lobbying for guns are also super into big government, the nanny state and 90% taxation that would be necessary for this safety planning and constant supervision of their children by government armed troops, sorry security guards.
Sorry. That's crap. A lot of schools already have school resource officers, and they are trained police officers. If safety is important, then we should make schools safer with police protection. Banning guns won't do that.
28
« on: October 10, 2015, 12:05 »
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up.
I guess murderers where you live must be far more polite than ours, waiting for you to go and fetch your gun for a 'fair fight'.
Or do you literally have your gun in your hand or on your hip at all times, and never go to sleep?
Who defends school kids? Do your teachers work with their guns in their hands ready to shoot?
Your argument is illogical. Unless the above are all true.
Why do you think your "right to self-defence" is more important than protecting kids in school?
I can get to my guns a lot faster than the police can get to my house to save me and mine. There are other ways to protect kids in schools besides banning all guns. We could put full-time police officers in every school, control access and formulate safety plans. If having full-time armed security is good enough for our president, why isn't it good enough for our school kids? Why do you think I should lose my civil rights because someone else abuses theirs? Why should I be punished for obeying the law just because someone else chooses to break it?
29
« on: October 10, 2015, 12:02 »
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.
You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.
All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality.
A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights.
If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?
Well, you've reached the point of complete ridiculousness. But thanks for admitting you don't care about evidence; that pretty much sums it up.
You may be tired of the majority of Americans "telling you what to do", but you know what we're tired of? The minority of you putting the rest of us at higher risk of death because of your irrational love of guns. So excuse us for being pretty disgusted with you.
Except you're not in the majority. You want an outright ban on all guns. That's a very minority view. Like I said, you're stuck in a bubble and incapable of seeing outside of it.
30
« on: October 10, 2015, 11:31 »
I tried once checking getting insurance through my home policy, and they threatened to cancel my policy for running a business out of my home. So, I went with State Farm to get liability and equipment insurance. Which has more than paid for itself.
I have the same thing. Costs about $500 a year, with a $500 deductible. Not State Farm, tho. From The Hartford. The workers comp I have to carry because of a contract is way, way more expensive.
31
« on: October 10, 2015, 11:17 »
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
I see a lot of failures of logic in all your arguments for guns. You refuse to look at worldwide statistics about how the amount of guns correlates to the amount of gun deaths. You refuse to see anything as a gun issue; it's a black gang issue, or a mental health issue, or a liberal loony issue, or anything but the obvious elephant in the room, which is the proliferation of guns.
You simply ignore statistics that show suicides could be reduced if there were fewer guns; mass shootings could be reduced, murders, accidental shootings, school shootings, etc. etc. etc. Instead you make a "logical" statement about divorce not being a wedding ring issue.
All the people from countries other than ours who can't understand why we have so many guns can now see the thinking process many Americans are simply amazed by. So thanks for sharing that.
I look at the worldwide statistics. I just don't care about them. My right to self-defense is more important than preventing suicide by gun or anything else you bring up. I don't want to live in a country that gives a burglar more rights than a homeowner. They can be amazed, confused, disappointed or whatever they want. I just don't care what you or they think. I'm exhausted by people who live in New York and San Francisco telling me how I should live, when they live in some weird bubble that is totally divorced from reality. A free society doesn't remove basic civil rights from all people because a few choose to abuse those rights. If we follow your suicide theory to its logical conclusion, then we should ban everything that makes it easier for people to kill themselves. We should ban snack foods, tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks and cars just for starters. At what point would it be enough? How many people do we have to save from themselves?
32
« on: October 10, 2015, 10:58 »
I support more extensive background checks and closing the private transfer loophole (including gun shows). All sales should be recorded to prevent gun trafficking. I also support limiting weapons purchases to one a month, again to prevent trafficking. Really, how many guns do you need for self-defense? Maybe a rifle and a pistol at most?
But how much will it help? The background check system completely failed in the Charleston shootings because the government was its usual incompetent self.
And keeping the mentally ill from getting guns is difficult. I support the idea of keeping crazy people from getting guns, but I don't like the idea of a mental illness being reported to the government. It should be something that is private. Also, who is going to judge if someone is mentally ill enough to lose a civil right? A government doctor? A court? Can you get your right back when you're judged mentally healthy? There are too many questions and concerns.
33
« on: October 10, 2015, 10:41 »
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents.
"Likewise, not counting hurricanes, America would not have so many natural disasters. Not counting divorces, America would have more intact families. Not counting wars, America would have a smaller public debt. But what's the point of this exercise? The people who make up America count as Americans, and their problems count as America's problems. Their problems do not occur in isolation, but are manifestations of failures to which all Americans contributed together."
Like you said, it's an opinion piece. I think it's a failure of logic. Suicides are not a gun issue just like divorce isn't a wedding ring issue.
34
« on: October 10, 2015, 10:39 »
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns.
Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens.
This is not an argument.
Of course I respect and comply with the law, but it doesn't mean I must agree with everything the government or the supreme court decides.
Especially when such arguments defy simple logic only to protect special interests.
This is exactly what worked well in US since the Kings and Queens.
What you do is replacing the Kings and Queens unchallangeble will with the Supreme Court will.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
It can be challenged. Support a new amendment to change it, which would overrule the Supreme Court. That's the process we have. You don't have to respect the decision; you do have to respect the process.
35
« on: October 10, 2015, 10:22 »
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means.
The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great.
The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
Protecting your home from a burglar is not the same as protecting a "free state". This is a forced interpretation. It rather means protecting the free state institutions (ie from dictatorship and such)
So, instead of saying that you have guns because you don't live in a big city and the police is not always around, you must say that you have guns to save the "free state" from some future evil dictator. Or else, don't use the 2nd ammendment to justify your hobby or your need for home protection.
Additionally, "well regulated" is stronger than just "regulated" and far stronger than today's "free for all" virtually unregulated gun ownership.
There are places where you can buy guns in a supermarket, but not alcohol.
What a hypocrisy!
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
.
You can't have a well-regulated militia unless the citizens already have guns. Even so, that's only one reason we are guaranteed the right to gun ownership as stated in the 2nd Amendment. You're interpreting it incorrectly. The Supreme Court, the highest law of the land, doesn't read it that way, and we have to respect that because that's the democratic system we have put in place. And it has worked since the rest of the world was ruled by kings and queens. And I never used the 2nd Amendment as my only justification for self-defense. Protecting your life, your family's life and your property is a natural right enshrined by federal and state laws.
36
« on: October 10, 2015, 10:18 »
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.
No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly.
Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.
I think this writer states the issue very well in this opinion piece. "The price of redefining gun violence as an issue pertaining only to "those people" -- of casting and recasting the gun statistics to make them less grisly if only "those people" are toted under some different heading in some different ledger -- the price of that redefinition is to lose our ability to think about the problem at all." http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/opinion/frum-guns-race/
There are more than 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. every year, many many more than in any other comparable country. As I stated before, pro-gun people in the U.S. like to break down those gun deaths into the smallest possible pieces, then look at one piece at a time...out of context.
If you want to look at suicides, also look at the statistics showing that guns are by far the most effective means to commit suicide, and that most people who attempt suicide and fail are NOT likely to attempt it again. In other words, if you take guns out of the equation, more people who attempted suicide would be more likely to fail, and unlikely to attempt it again. So they would survive.
You have to look at the forest and stop breaking it down into individual trees. The proliferation of guns in this country makes it easier for white men to kill themselves, black men to kill each other, men to kill women, criminals to commit crimes, children to shoot their siblings, students to shoot other students, and toddlers to shoot their mothers in the grocery store. The whole forest of gun deaths happen because we have too many guns and they're too easy to get.
The anti-gun loonies like to include suicides because their numbers don't add up to fit their narrative otherwise. Without suicides, the leading cause of death among Americans is traffic accidents. Fact is, you have a much larger chance of dying today in a traffic accident than you do of getting killed in a spree shooting or other crime. If you're worried about suicides, then you need to ban prescription pills, rope, belts and all the other methods used. Suicides are a mental health issue, not a gun issue.
37
« on: October 10, 2015, 09:11 »
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away.
This is Ok, but then people must stop using the second ammendment to justify it.
The right to defend your family is understandable, but it is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitution talks about the Security of a Free State, not about security of individuals.
Moreover, it implies that people bearing arms are those Militia members, not just independent individuals. Being an NRA member doesn't mean member of a militia.
And that militia and the gun ownership must be "well regulated".
It is almost like the founding fathers have anticipated that today's situation, with "free for all", virtually unregulated gun ownership, is bad.
In modern days, forced and twisted interpretations in courts have modified the initial meaning, as it happened in other cases (eg. corporations are people, 10th ammendment nullification, etc).
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
We have courts to interpret what it says because we don't agree on what it means. The way I read it is that you can't have a well regulated militia when you need one unless people already have the right to own guns and that the ability to form a militia is just one reason for firearm ownership, not the only one. Also, the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) itself refers to individual rights, not the rights of the whole. As a nation, we guarantee these rights even if the majority finds the rights distasteful. That's what makes it great. The fact is that the founding fathers wanted to make sure U.S. citizens already had firearms in the event they needed to organize a militia in a time of crisis to protect their homes and communities. That need still exists even with a standing Army and police force. Nobody can predict the future. The military and police are not always available.
38
« on: October 10, 2015, 09:03 »
2/3 of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides, and 80% of those suicides are committed by white males. That means that white men killing themselves accounts for more than half of all gun deaths every year in this country. Nothing else even comes close. Not black gangs killing each other, or mass shootings, or even men killing their wives and girlfriends.
No one seriously considers suicide to be a gun crime. Those would occur with or without guns. Typical left-wing deflection and unwillingness to discuss the issue honestly. Most assaults and murders with guns are not committed by whites.
39
« on: October 10, 2015, 05:24 »
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
There was an article recently in the Times that said mass shooter use previous shootings as a template for their actions.
But I think two things have changed. The first big one is tha leadership and purpose of the NRA. From my understanding, it used to be an organization promoting responsible gun ownership. La Pierre turned it into something completely different, an organization married to gun manufacturers whose only goal is to sell as many guns as possible, and if millions of people die because of that, oh well, collateral damage.
The second is the browning of America. White men are becoming a smaller and smaller minority, and everyone else is clamoring for equality, so the white guys see their iron grip on power maybe someday loosening a bit. When a black man was elected President it really freaked them out. So the NRA and gun lobby plays on that fear. That's why you hear more and more about the Second Amendment..many of these people quite literally believe they'll have to overthrow the government soon, and even talk about starting a civil war if anyone dares pass stricter gun regulation.
Not one bit of that ignorance explains why there are more mass shootings than previously, despite the fact that guns have always been available. You made no effort to honestly answer the question. Blaming gun deaths on "Angry White Male" syndrome is beyond ridiculous when most gun crimes are committed by blacks and Hispanics, and most victims are black.
40
« on: October 10, 2015, 04:20 »
But outright banning is wrong.
Please tell me who in this country is talking about banning guns?
The only place I ever read or hear that is in the right-wing media and among activist groups, which have stirred up fear and panic among their target audience (low-information, easily frightened, gun-owning conservatives) with the scary-but-false story that "Obama is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
They've been playing the gun owners for suckers with that line for 6.5 years now, ever since Obama became president. What on earth are they going to do to stir up the panic (and keep the frightened ones' $$$$ flowing into their coffers) when the next president takes office? "Hillary is coming to take your guns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 
Shelma1 and half the people posting in this thread said specifically we should ban all the guns. So let's stop pretending that's not the end goal for some people. On the other hand, I know banning guns is impossible. You'd need two-thirds of Congress, not just a majority, to agree to an amendment and then agreement by 38 of the 50 states. Not possible, at least not for a really long time.
41
« on: October 09, 2015, 22:08 »
Not saying the reviewer was right or wrong, or whether your images were in or out of focus since I haven't seen them, but stating that they were in focus because, " it is shot on one of the top end cameras locked down on a tripod at f/8," is confusing coming from an experienced photographer. We hear that a lot in these forums from beginners, but you know better. The type of camera has nothing to do with focus. A tripod can eliminate camera shake, but has nothing to do with focus. The aperture determines depth of field, but doesn't mean that the subject, or any part of the image for that matter is in focus. SS doesn't like narrow depth of field or selective focus, so that is something we have learned to live with or rant against, but we can't change it.
Yep. Most of my images are shot handheld at f4 and I don't have any trouble with rejections. Very rare.
42
« on: October 09, 2015, 21:54 »
This post isn't pro- or anti-gun, but just asks a question. I have asked it on several forums around the 'net in threads similar to this and have yet to get a response, so I'll try it here.
The question is, What Changed? Why now?
Virtually all guns available today were available 20-30 years ago. Assault, auto and semi-auto weapons have been widely available for a long time. The 2nd amendment has been around for 239 years. If anything, in many places, guns and/or ammo are harder to get now than they were a few years ago.
So, what changed? Why now?
It's not logical to say that the mass shootings of today are because of the availability of guns, because guns have always been available. When I was in high school, in the days of the Uzi, AK-47, and Mac-10, the thought of someone bringing a gun to school was unthinkable, much less that the gun would be used to kill people. Back then, anybody could buy any gun anywhere, but mass killings were unheard of. So, what changed?
I'm not saying that making guns and/or ammo harder to get won't help the problem. I don't have the answer for that.
I'm just asking, what changed?
Anybody?
I tell you what the difference is: Media Saturation. These mass killers know that they will be able to cause lasting pain greater than what they inflict directly because the media will cover it over and over and over. They know the media will make them famous and cause anguish in the society that they feel has wronged them. They are lone wolf terrorists with their own agendas. Like terrorists, killing is their message and the media helps them spread it.
43
« on: October 09, 2015, 21:50 »
Actually, it's not acceptable to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do NOT own a gun. Gun owners are in the minority. The reason there are 88 guns per 100 people is that the gun-owning minority owns multiple guns per person, one for each of their many trigger fingers, I guess. The vast majority of Americans would like to see more stringent background checks. And some of us would like to see most guns destroyed.
Yes, but a majority wants to keep gun ownership legal whether they personally own one or not. You should have a right to defend your home and family with deadly force. Not all of us live in an urban environment where the police are minutes away. Having said that, I don't see a problem with strengthening the laws to make it more difficult to get a gun, especially for the crazies. All rights come with some restrictions. We have restrictions on speech; we can afford some more on gun ownership. But outright banning is wrong.
44
« on: September 08, 2015, 22:48 »
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.
45
« on: August 28, 2015, 08:17 »
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value
i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.
Books, music and movies (digital downloads). Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80. If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.
46
« on: August 09, 2015, 17:11 »
What about lenses of longer lengths? I just upgraded from Nikon D90 to 7100 after 2 D90s broke from usage within 48 hrs of each other. (and a lens within the same month!)
Right now my main lens is the 70-300mm AFS ED VR F/4.5-5.6 zoom which is a little short for some of my needs. Not rolling in money due to family medical issues but feeling the need for a longer lens a lot lately.
What do people think of the Tamron 150-600mm lens? Sigma?
If money is an issue, I would get the Tamron 150-600.
47
« on: August 01, 2015, 10:37 »
I'm having a hard time adjusting to the D750 but change has always been hard for me. The display images look fine but then when I add them to my computer they are very dark and dull. It is certainly a learning process but LOVE the quality of images produced. I have to adjust everything via post processing. Not sure what is going on... Color balance is Adobe RGB. White balance is auto outside.
The images displayed on the back on the camera add in-camera adjustments from whatever profile you have set (standard, neutral, vivid, portrait, etc.) When you import raw into lightroom or camera raw, those in-camera presets are stripped off depending on what you have set up under camera calibration. Also, you need to set color space to sRGB, not Adobe RGB. It doesn't matter so much in camera as it does when you export from RAW to jpg from your computer. If you're exporting Adobe RGB instead of sRGB, you images will look flat, dark and strange when you upload them. You can easily convert the color space if you already have them edited in photoshop or lightroom.
48
« on: July 30, 2015, 11:23 »
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.
Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.
But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.
I have a bunch of exclusive photos with Getty. Granted, I am definitely getting a much higher RPD from Getty, indeed (~$26)
However, my math shows that, even if I transfer all my collection exclusively to Getty, by taking in account a much lower sales volume, I will end up with about 30% less/month, than what I'm doing now.
Same story goes for Alamy, although you can argue that sales are so low (3% of the total) because I'm not exclusive there (and that's false, anyway)
I'm not saying transfer everything, some images will do better at higher priced places and others at lower priced sites. Images that are good and have little or no competition on microstock sites should probably be priced higher.
Maybe. Not much to say when those sites reject you for whatever reason. I don't know why, because many of my images are as good if not better than what's on those sites. Not all of them. I have some real crappers from when I first started, but a lot of them. So really, you can blame whomever is running those sites. They reject people coming up, who end up on cheaper sites with competitive images. Still, I'm happy overall with my earnings compared to the size of my port and the amount of work I put into it, which isn't all that much. Stock images are only a portion of my overall photography earnings, and they really help out. I'm happy to have this conversation with you, tickstock. I see where you're coming from, and maybe you see where I'm coming from.
49
« on: July 30, 2015, 08:47 »
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.
Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard.
But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Your city shots would probably be accepted somewhere like Stocksy or Getty. You would need just a couple sales to make that amount.
I've been rejected by both of those. I don't think either site would give me the steady income that I get now. One sale every once in a while based on a little luck just doesn't cut it.
50
« on: July 29, 2015, 23:07 »
So you believe you haven't produced any work that is unique? I see your Panama Beach images are some of your most popular and there aren't any on Shutterstock that compete with them, if those were only available on higher priced sites buyers would need to go there, a buyer can't use a nice image of Miami to illustrate Panama Beach. The market isn't totally oversaturated yet.
Well, they are top of my most popular now, but they aren't my best sellers. They're just sorta more recent. I have one image that is No. 2 under "pets" search. It has sold more than 3,000 times in two years and earned me almost $2,000. I spent 10 minutes taking it in the front yard. But let's take one of those Panama City Beach images, for example. The night shot of the strip there has been online for about a year on both Shutterstock and Istock. On Shutterstock, it has sold 238 times for $122. On Istock, it has had one view and no sales. I has had 9 sales on Fotolia. There's really no better, higher priced site for me to use. Shutterstock is it. The only thing that comes close is 500px, but sales there are pretty rare and images are easy to steal with no real watermark.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
