|
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 - molka
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
126
« on: November 10, 2010, 09:50 »
To my knowledge FD-regular has never claimed to be a great or knowledgeable photographer or guru type.
He does know a bit about the market, a lot about computing/ the internet/ programming, literature and the world in general.
This makes his posts both interesting and informative, whether you agree with him or not.
never claims, none of thes guys do, just constantly acts like that. that's enough for me. Some of these guys even 'publish' ebooks on photo and PP, sitting on top of a gelleries with at best mediocre snaphots, and go around calling out 'listen up noobs...' kinda things. They always find a plenty of novices to mislead... juts makes my eyes bleed, what a farce : ((((((((
127
« on: November 10, 2010, 09:41 »
Molka has a long running feud with FD that has nothing to do with this thread or its subject matter.
FD had some sort of altercation with one of molka's many previous identities. FD is also one of the few who has been able to consistently spot him no matter which of his many trolling incarnations he masquerades behind - perseus, lefty, batman, tanjomast10,hali, molka, etc., etc., etc. Honestly, there have been so many it's getting harder and harder to remember them all 
this the only nick and the only timespan that I'v been on this forum, ever
128
« on: November 10, 2010, 09:21 »
oh man you'r a dumb little prick.
Molka, while I agree with most of the comments you've made on this page, I feel compelled to pull you up on that one. FD makes some very sharp observations in these forums and has a very healthy sense of humour too.
I see him trying to play the smartass and a the great photographer (giving great advice about photography). he's none. very annoying, sorry. I have to say I'm a bit fed up with this net phenomenom of self absorbed people handing out advice, who actually need advice themselves. They always find victims in total novices, and do all the damage they can. Now that's not a big deal on places like youtube, etc, bit it is painfull to see among newcomers seemigly all stressed out about their photography... they come to the worst possible place to be measured, by the worst kind of standards. Projectile vomit stuff for me. Everyone coming to photography should be introduced to it being a noble art form, and what do they get... dragged down to produce ultravivid puke by someone who's greatest achievement is doing just that. Horror. Yeah, I am pissed about that, anyone may shoot all the microjunk he/she wants as long as they know it's a pile o' sheit with some rare exceptions, and don't present it as top level photography to be measured against. But they do that, all the time. End of rant, I'll get on working : ))
129
« on: November 10, 2010, 08:36 »
I'v got a brand new idea that will make microstock totally obsolete: the tap-on-the-shoulder model. You obviously missed Flickr.
I'v got requests for single publication usage of my shots on flicker (pratically like rm) and I charged 100 $ or more each time, they payed those wihtout a single complaint. That's 400 or 277 SS downloads f.e. Besides flickr is a nice place without the that repulsive aura of constatly screwing people. : ) It even has better keywording system than microjunk sites, ain't that ridiculous admin edit: removed needless name calling
130
« on: November 10, 2010, 07:56 »
RF = paycut micro modell = huge paycut subscriptions = large paycut stuffing several images into one = self-paycut microstock = idiot magnet  I'v got a brand new idea that will make microstock totally obsolete: the pat-on-the-shoulder model. No payment whatsoever... much more better: the enthusiastic amateurs will get automated email compliments for downloads: - 'Your image has caught somebone's eye! Impressive!' - 'Someone thinks your shot is way cool! You are a cool photographer!' - 'They like your shot! Way to go man!!' - 'Something somewhere features your great shot! Sooner or later you will be famous! Keep shooting, great stuff!'
131
« on: November 10, 2010, 05:08 »
"That's how the SS machine works. If you get a lot of downloads within the first week, your image shows up among the most popular and that's critical for its longevity."
that pretty much defeats the micro modell, game over.
132
« on: November 10, 2010, 04:52 »
no they wouldn't. the first is an okay portrait, but the background is too busy for stockyness. the rest is pretty poor, I definiately not a great fan of the microstock standrad for photography (it's a cesspool of corniness with added amateurish waaay overprocessing for the added trailorpark - bad - taste feel) but I would understand them not wanting those. The poor gal on the second portrait looks like she fell and got her head smahsed againt a pipe : )
133
« on: November 09, 2010, 13:42 »
These mid level company 'capitalists' sound more and more like goddam' communists nowadays. Same crap propaganda style talk about how everyone should work on some kinda enhtusiasm because it's not really money that makes anyone happy. : D I guess you should work all with the common good in mind... fit that concept onto stock photography : ))) The little pumpkins even dare to end their craptalk with some semi-aggressive remark about how everyone should just shut up and get on working, uploading. These are not capitalits. They are just some small time piece o' sheit boyos who were lucky enough to sit on a business that grew fast for while, and now they try play the dumb little boy's version of a plutokrat - wannabe... and of course unlike a real plutokratic person of power, they'r just told to f**k off, as due : ) Or they just get bought by the really wealthy, and than told to f**k off, doesn't really matter that much.
134
« on: November 09, 2010, 08:05 »
madelaide, I've had one sale for $.50 a couple of days ago, it was an extra small. I'm guessing that's a regular sale, not a sub. Didn't find a way to tell if it was a sub or not.
As far as I know no one pays 50 cents for SUB downloads, so that has to be a PPD one.
Just a quick question, are estimate on the number of current buyers available? and how is that expanding...?
135
« on: November 09, 2010, 08:03 »
Overreaction, this isn't really big deal at all. Anyways, he signed an MR on pictures for possible ad use... ads are generally phoney and demagogic.
136
« on: November 09, 2010, 03:12 »
"Those people put their blood sweat and tears into creating new businesses that were long shots."
Yes, and they are called contributors, who were ready to work a lot and alot more for just the possibility of micorpayments. After clearing that up, there isn't much sense to the rest of your post is there? Try to think it over a bit more next time. : )
137
« on: November 07, 2010, 14:22 »
Do I dare say macro or some morph of it?
Therein lies the crux of the matter. Something new has to evolve. Those of use producing viable 'niche' images currently seem to have no place in the microstock market, which means money is being left on the table.
I'm not giving microstock any more images that cost me $15 to produce and return $10 after a year.
I don't need to get $500 for a sale, or $50. At just $5 things would start to make sense. I'd even find SS subscription sales acceptable at $1, but not 25 cents.
HELLO! YES! EXACTLY!
I'd be very happy with micro at $1.00 a download, minimum. Instead they keep dropping the prices and commissions and we're getting tossed spare change like beggars on the street with a tin cup.
Sadly, it look like many are happy as long as they sell something. In my opinion, not many report bad incomes, but they do report bad sales. I don't care if I get a low commission by being exclusive with Istock. I know I still get 76 cents for a XS and up to 14$ for a XXXL. 14$ that's 4 Fotolia extended licences.
To equal one full size sale, I would have to sell around 40 full size pics elsewhere at subs prices.
what % of your sales XXXL makes nowadays?
138
« on: November 07, 2010, 13:55 »
I round up sime really nice gals, they get hq pictures of themselves for free if they sign MR, and I try to get laid. That way it's worth shooting for microcrap. If don't get laid at all, I stop, coz that is just unsustainable : ) Or maybe I should drop my DSLR, seems like it's becoming a loosers icon as I read here, and just pimp them, I dunno, we'll see. I was also thinking maybe it's easier to mug people disguised as photographer.
139
« on: November 05, 2010, 17:57 »
ehh, that was lame, that's not how REAL russain weddings go when they strike it big and have some real fun:
140
« on: November 02, 2010, 04:27 »
"Remember when we tested the color change of the download button?"
I vote brown, as for crap : )
141
« on: November 01, 2010, 15:56 »
Either you know how it's impossible for them to hide downloads or you don't. Are you suggesting we get someone to download our own images occasionally so we can check that the appropriate royalties are accredited to us? If so, it's only a suggestion, not an admission, so why not share it with us?
Personally, I don't think downloads are being hidden, but that's just me.
that's the obvious one, but let's hope he has a better answer than buying your own files coz that's dumb as hell : )
142
« on: November 01, 2010, 13:52 »
Just say no to mediocre entertainment.
143
« on: October 31, 2010, 19:21 »
molka and eggshell? Is it a serious relationship? This could become a dating site. Ideally suited to each other. Link to my portfolio if you want. It is also crap
I don't like drama queens : ) what link? ehh, I don't * care about thumbnails anyway, theyr useles, I certainly won't buy some crap highres just to check it out : D
144
« on: October 31, 2010, 19:16 »
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.
Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .
This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?
how about you btw
No. I'm not the one bashing other peoples' portfolios publicly. Neither am I the one nagging about agencies rejecting some very special credit card shot that I think is good but the reviewers don't (and the others cannot tell their opinion because the OP don't show the image).
you are the one being 'sarcastic'. why so shy? why so seroiusss? : ] "eggshell = molka?" no, I'm suppsoed to be macrosaur according to some local village idiots : ]
145
« on: October 31, 2010, 18:44 »
Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.
I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. You can hiss at getty as much as you want, and they deserve it being overtly agressive business people, but the microstock bunch are a lot-lot worse, they are just frudulant bandits. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors that the best you got was single file upload buttons straight from the eighties, and upload and inspection system that creates enormous amount of eytra work without that having any pint at all (reauploading stuff because of bad keywording?? what?) and that has nothing to do with getty. I ran into some rare occasions when Yuri got involved in forums, and the admins trash talked him too, locked his threads.. doing that to the guy who single handidly made them millions! You call that a happy community site??? You are out your mind. And then the worst part: subscritions (it's not just about istock of course) That's a huge paycut to start with, and everybody just blatantly accepts it because it was presented as s "new structure". I guess dumbos only new to be fed a buzzword, and they'll go with any crap : ((( The whole subscription thing is doorway to conning the s**t out of you. Imho it wouldn't be a huge surprsie if it turned out that you don't even get noted - and of course payed - for all the downloads you get in that system, they just hide it, and there you go. How . would you now? On SS f.e. there isn't even a download number, only a listing for 'popularity' which seems to be a combination of age and downloads, but it's obscure to say the least. Any of your files might have been downloaded more than you know, and you'll never know, bacause once a subscription has expired, they just can just erase all data of it except for it being payed for, and than reaching expiration by downloads or date. It's pretty much clear that almost none of the subscriions reach all the downloads possible, so the only way you could find out how things actually went is to cross reference clients downloads with your track record, which is practically impossible. I suspect you are F-ed BiG TimE all over the place with these sites... : (
146
« on: October 31, 2010, 12:40 »
I happened to be checking Pixmac and noticed that they have API software giving them access to Dreamstime and Fotolia databases which is fine if that's their agreement. Sure enough, my images from Dreamstine and Fotolia are there with my name given as the photographer.
....
do you get royalties from sales there? can you make sure you do? because if not, you all are pretty much f**ked.
148
« on: October 25, 2010, 10:01 »
I happened upon this newly uploaded gem this morning. Not a horrible stock image, but nothing more than ordinary (and there is a lot more ordinary stuff in this contributor's portfolio).
Dumping this overpriced, run-of-the-mill content onto the site is just a horrible strategy. Even with some really great images from existing IS contributors going into Agency, the collection as a whole is just not worth what they're charging.
Until there's some simple way for buyers to just exclude this (without having to know to put &agencyCollection=0 at the end of their search string), they're going to get really p#*ed off. Right now there's no way to save preferences to exclude Agency or Vetta; and you can't do an advanced search until you have done a regular one.
I thin it's a pretty good guess that getty didn't just hand over these images with the order "put them up on istock" but rahter "sell them". You can figure aout the rest.
149
« on: October 22, 2010, 09:01 »
expect more of this, the hack ppl are just discovering this new content. Also with recent news around microstock, as contributors getting shafted, and really doing nothing about it... don't you never-ever think it goes unnoticed with these guys, they see you are easy targets who do almost nothing to protect their interests. Not as if much can be done anyway.. : / They just gnna take bites out you nothing anyone can really do anything about it.
150
« on: October 22, 2010, 08:25 »
I have no idea why you chose to bash some individuals portfolio just because you got a rejection. And you are not even showing YOUR rejected image.
BTW I can't see anything special (either way) in the portfolio you linked. I think there are many saleable images there.
Now I know more than enough about your quality standards .
This is not about my quality standards, it's about the customers' quality standards. I'm pretty sure the person with the portfolio has sold some images.
Why don't you show us your magnificent amazing wonderful portfolio?
how about you btw
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
