|
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 - thesentinel
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
176
« on: February 05, 2009, 13:51 »
This has been going on since the internet started, any digital file can be 'shared', why should anyone here think that imagery would be any different from software, music, film etc. The music industry, considerably larger than microstock, has been totally unable to stop this, what chance do we have.
177
« on: February 02, 2009, 10:47 »
Sure, but that's only cause the MAC / graphics / etc sales reps sell MAC's as better / faster / prettier than PC's. It will be hard for a MAC to beat my PC's performance, considering I have a Core 2 Quad 9300 CPU, 4GB DDRII 800Mhz RAM and 2x Gefore 9600 GT 3D cards 
May be a Mac Pro with two Quad Core Xeon Harpertown CPU, 32 GB DDRII 800MHz and 2x NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1.5Go?
U can easily use all that with 64x windows , add 2x superior NVIDIA Quadro FX 5800 pack it in lets say coolermaster cosmost that is more quality build and looks better then the macs case.
Then put a decent cooling , and you will have a superior PC for way less $ spent.
Is there room for a wheel?!
178
« on: February 02, 2009, 10:44 »
New laptop from Apple:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary?utm_source=embedded_video
Stupidity has no limits , they made typing few times harder than on regular cell phone , I don't know how could this thing handle shortcuts.... or any work at all.
What did they gain , a giant circle slide where keyboard was once , that keyboard that you need replaced for something that only makes your work painful.
Im sorry but that product is almost useless and born to be a huge failure if it ever comes out in this form.
Hook, line and sinker :-) I'm reminded of a post on dpreview about a test shot in a review which featured a shot of the Lord Mayors office in London when some wise spark made a comment on such bad lens distortion, such an earnest follow on ensued, it was almost a shame when the joker had to point out that the building looks like its slanting anyway.
179
« on: February 01, 2009, 16:55 »
I like the way you brought my kids into it, classy. Having a great day 
AVAVA
You brought the mention of your kids into this forum, along with your continued sarcasm.
180
« on: February 01, 2009, 14:34 »
181
« on: January 29, 2009, 12:00 »
I'd call it above average. I'd also like to point out that I think iStock should block this. No one should have to put up with their financial information being spread all over the internet in such detail.
I wish that all sites ceased publishing individual sales data - it only serves to make copying, already an easy task, even easier. I see it's other purpose - comparing your sales with those of others - as a luxury and not a necessity.
A bit odd then that you posted the link !
182
« on: January 28, 2009, 11:59 »
I could not readily find the answer (I promise - I looked and looked).....but since I've never deactivated a photo on IS, can someone explain how one goes about deactivating a file that isn't selling? Maybe I'm just not going to the correct screen.
I looked for a place to do so at the site, and I can't seem to locate it.
Thanks.
Click on "Administration" on the file page, then type in your reason into the Change File Status box and click the deactivate file button, et viola!
183
« on: January 22, 2009, 18:51 »
I hope you see the point. Just shoot and be happy. Once you start shooting for money it takes away the magic of photography.
No, I can't agree.
When I was shooting for a hobby I almost entirely concentrated on landscapes and sports. The problem with that was you were so utterly dependent on things outside of your control, like the weather.
One of the beauties of stock is that it has opened my eyes to a whole range of subjects and styles of shooting that I'd never even considered before and, as a result, some the images I'm now proudest of I would never even have thought of photographing before. Because of the range of subjects and the sheer quanity of photography and all the learning involved in understanding stock I'm 10x better at photography now than I ever was before.
Nowadays I can get just as much pleasure and satisfaction out of shooting a plate of food or an industrial concept as I've ever got out of landscapes. Yes, shooting for money is supposedly still 'a job' ... but it doesn't feel like one.
I can start when I want, stop when I want and I also get to choose what and where I want to do it. I can pretty much buy all the equipment I want, travel where I want to go and then subtract all those expenses from my tax return. Does it beat climbing into a suit and driving to the same industrial estate every day? You bet it does __ I've never been happier.
Indeed, if you get paid for doing something you enjoy it only serves to expand magic as you explore further possibilities and horizons, the old magic of playing with chemicals in a darkroom is just as present in the excitement of sitting down in front of a new batch raw files.... being paid for doing something creative which you enjoy is a gift few people have in this day and age.
184
« on: January 22, 2009, 14:09 »
These are two different exclusives with two different opinions. It's not "speaking from both sides of the mouth"... there is more than one mouth. Good grief. Are you saying that what one exclusive believes, all should? That's ridiculous.
Not at all. I am referring to past arguments made by the same people in this thread that Alexa and Compete.com had no validity. Now they wish to use the same statistical data to prove iStock is the leading microstock site. I could care less whether it is or not. I contribute to IS, and as long as they do well, I have a better chance of doing well.
But this is not the Woo-Yay forum. I've watched the same iStock gang mentality which exists on the IS forum pervade this fine forum for over a year, and frankly I'm tired of it. It's the same several people, making the same tired arguments, running down other agencies, and defending each others' backs. It never takes you long to show up in these debates, does it?
If you don't keep your arguments straight, I'm going to call you on it.
Hello, you seem to have quoted me in the above mentioned posting... oddly enough I was saying that Alexa data was from a self selective panel, as is the side bar, and that it is a problem when either are quoted as 'the truth' I cannot see how I'm using this to prove that any site is the leading site. I'm not sure where I've taken on a gang mentality, but I am aware it can run both ways.
185
« on: January 21, 2009, 09:45 »
186
« on: January 20, 2009, 11:15 »
187
« on: January 20, 2009, 10:46 »
I believe alexa is very accurate. It shows the traffic regardless it is buyers or contributors and it is the same for all sites. IS is one of the top 500 sites in the world, SS is always moving between 1500 and 2000. My numbers reflect that alexa is pin-point accurate.
No one has to agree. I don't see why people make a big deal of this
It's a big deal because people like to quote Alexa as 'the truth' when in fact again it's collected from a self selected uncontrolled set of users, and which during the last year has shown wild swings due to their internal methodology changes.
188
« on: January 20, 2009, 08:36 »
Whatever the 'truth' is, chances are it won't be found on an internet forum. Generally they are largely populated by the opinionated, and usually the opinionated tend to have biases. A forum can also become the focus for a certain set of biases, thus on a fan site for a certain TV show the most viewed and publicly popular episode can become, ala 'comic guy' "the worst episode..ever"
The 'truth' of the poll results is that they are from a self selected small panel from an internet forum, with no controls and with no weighting for income per completer.
The only problem with that is when it gets quoted as 'the truth'.
189
« on: January 16, 2009, 15:03 »
Another tip is that when applying to agencies they may want more variety than just all isolated on white!
190
« on: January 16, 2009, 02:33 »
Such progress in less than a week, you're going to do well ! As you already know keep all product names off stock shots and be careful with highly distinctive high end designed products, think generic.
191
« on: January 14, 2009, 17:35 »
Ahh the good old days when images were free or 10 cents and buyers had little expectation of quality. Those nursery slopes have been closed off for a long time now.
But there has never been an easier time to learn with all the excellent tutorial sites, crit sites, competition sites etc. etc. It looks like the OP has learned a great deal from such sites already with his PS work so I'm sure he'll soon by outshooting many of us here!
192
« on: January 12, 2009, 13:00 »
I shall give you an example of a good advertising ploy.....in 2005 British Gas announced if you buy you electric and gas from us ( duel fuel) we shall freeze our prices till 2010.I have not got the figures to hand but literally 1000@s signed up including me !
If istockphoto don't listen to it's contributors why would they have a suggestion section on their forum...
Here's a deal, why don't you ask to be paid at the same rates as 2005 ??!
193
« on: January 09, 2009, 19:42 »
Ah those were the days, good old Frank could solve every murder with none of this new fangled CSI mumbo jumbo... think he's lost an N since then though.
194
« on: January 09, 2009, 08:59 »
I think they were referring to spending many sleepless nights to come up with the name, not the program. 
Maybe they ought to have called in Sinister not Dexter, that would be more in keeping for the kneejerk responses to anything connected with istock 
195
« on: January 07, 2009, 18:21 »
From hapless newbie to super-guru in a year, who'd have known?
Yes, and you can follow the entire journey just by reading the 51 threads he started in the istock critique forum.
It's really a touching epic, best enjoyed if you begin at the beginning - page 3.
http://www.istockphoto.com/shank_ali
You've come a long way, baby!
He reduced someone in my CN to tears, and not tears of laughter. Not all his posts are there anymore.
196
« on: January 07, 2009, 17:14 »
From hapless newbie to super-guru in a year, who'd have known?
197
« on: January 07, 2009, 07:45 »
I am not at liberty to discuss my ban from istock.If i can post again on istock next month i shall still post on this forum as the thought of annoying two groups of people at the same time stimulates me no end!
Well, make sure you clean up afterwards...
Hankie for Shanki please!
198
« on: January 06, 2009, 11:41 »
But I never see any enthusiasm coming from Windows worshipers
Most likely this is because people who prefer PC's view their computers as a tool, not a religion or a way of life...
Like most users of computers my computer is a tool, not a religion nor a way of life, it just happens that I use a mac, and as most of my friends are in the design or music business they do too. None of us feel the need to evangelise, just the same as our pc using friends feel no need to hate. Polarising threads, like this has become, are unrepresentative of the real world and just spread more heat than light. If we all liked exactly the same thing there would be no progress, nor need for stock photography, one handshake image would serve all needs for handshake illustrations etc.!
199
« on: December 24, 2008, 16:14 »
The shops are manic and people buying like the shops will be closed for weeks, totally bonkers....
Some will never open again.
200
« on: December 19, 2008, 13:08 »
The bulk of the design industry is based on re-presentations of existing cliches and memes, give a client something original and most likely they'll baulk on it. I've not seen anything on micro that I have not seen the progenitors of in old printed brochures from image bank, photodisc, bananastock etc etc of ten years ago. Get over it already.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
You don't have to cover something in sugar to be polite and courteous it is just being reasonable and respectful. 
