|
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
76
« on: November 30, 2010, 07:02 »
why do you want to make more of those hydrocephalic abominations? they are terrible : (
77
« on: November 29, 2010, 16:57 »
thx all. picasa is crap presnstaion tho, except fullscr + f11.
78
« on: November 29, 2010, 16:55 »
As single minded as these ppl tend to be when they got their sight on smthng they like, if you reshoot the thing, they are likely to say, 'nah, we want THAT ONE'. Hard to say tho, if it's some simple object shot, reshooting might work.
79
« on: November 29, 2010, 14:58 »
for all fairness. I might look to be a mean *insult removed*, but I always try to be fair.
That's the spirit. Deep down, we meanies are really nice shy people. 
I don't blame you though, hiding your real work, little prick.
yee, whatever. thats not what i meant, I'm not shy or nice. now I dont really have time for this, so it's a mess, just dragged up what was at hand in lowres. http://picasaweb.google.com/101791180493784062699hf
80
« on: November 29, 2010, 14:52 »
<snip> and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, <snip>
You missed the essential qualifier after the above, which is, "which most of the current market, which is based in North America, seems to prefer", though it is implied in what you wrote.
good call! there is a certain very restrictive style that partially originates from there, that micro shots have to conform to even more than general stock. ppl have to be dressed int mid-level-priced generic mall fashion clothes, interiors have to be light coloured with sparse simplistic (cheapo) furniture, as if it was an extension of the 'modern' corporate office... etc
A lot of the problem re clothes and furniture is that the RF model requires that everything be totally generic. Allegedly.
that's just a small part of it imho. spew generic crap on people and they will sucumb to it. In a utopia they would have enough individuality/personality to reject / alter it, in the real world they don't. My place f.e. has a lot of of quite beautiful antique furniture, and there hardly is space on the wall not interrupted by some konda painting or drawing. That's all really nice, and doesn't interfere with any copyright, but still the whole place is disqualified from micro shooting - style issue.
81
« on: November 29, 2010, 14:42 »
and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness
Tasteless cornyness are my best sellers.
I know, that and jerry spriengfield is what people want... and some cola light to thin down while watching tv.
82
« on: November 29, 2010, 07:50 »
Why would any of you spend days messing around on a forum with pics, getting all the useless contraditing and self-contradicting opinions? all you need to do is go to istock, shutter, whatever, type some basic keywords and see what comes as up most popular / downloaded.... on about 10 mins, you can get the picture, and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, or just be hobby microstocker
because it's very hard to be your own critic and there are some very talented people on this forum who are willing to give their opinion... opinions that is well worth listening to.
I understand, I wasn't talking against the forum, it's just that in my experience this method doesn't really work, only gets ppl confused... and often people walk by the most obvious and easy way the measure things up, like someone looking for their glasses while wearing them.
83
« on: November 29, 2010, 07:43 »
<snip> and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, <snip>
You missed the essential qualifier after the above, which is, "which most of the current market, which is based in North America, seems to prefer", though it is implied in what you wrote.
good call! there is a certain very restrictive style that partially originates from there, that micro shots have to conform to even more than general stock. ppl have to be dressed int mid-level-priced generic mall fashion clothes, interiors have to be light coloured with sparse simplistic (cheapo) furniture, as if it was an extension of the 'modern' corporate office... etc
84
« on: November 29, 2010, 05:22 »
Why would any of you spend days messing around on a forum with pics, getting all the useless contraditing and self-contradicting opinions? all you need to do is go to istock, shutter, whatever, type some basic keywords and see what comes as up most popular / downloaded.... on about 10 mins, you can get the picture, and decide whether you want your photography be consumed by all that tasteless cornyness, or just be hobby microstocker
85
« on: November 26, 2010, 14:48 »
Oh, my God. "Those who have personal opinions are sinners, loaded with envy, and will root in hell"
Amen.
most people are like that nowadays, with or without religion.
86
« on: November 26, 2010, 09:28 »
They don't want ot go into debt, that's all, they let the thing grow if it does. That might just be one of the reasons why thy can offer 50% and above. I personally find it really nice that the owner comes to speak with contributors, and speaks in a clear, pragmatic manner, no buzzphrases, no shady marketing junktalk.
87
« on: November 26, 2010, 08:30 »
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2464658280_3bd0caa41f_o.jpg
And to be honest, I don't believe a microsecond that the Flickr picture you posted here is yours.
You don't have the guts.  But that's fine. I have to do some work now.
thats kinda interesting. why? if its not mine who does it belong to, I wonder : ) guts for what? posting a few pic links.. you need to be a spartan hero for that nowadays? : ) of course I'm not looking for citique, I couldn't care less about most ppls opinion. (there are some, even here who's opinion would matter tho, sure) I just wanted to post a handful for all fairness. I might look to be a mean *insult removed*, but I always try to be fair.
88
« on: November 26, 2010, 06:54 »
What do you want to see? Just anything that gives an idea of your style and subjects. Anything that will make your sturdy and blunt remarks about the industry a bit more than just amusing to read.
I'v got no problem with being amusing, rather that than being a * flat dull peon. For my own fun I shoot nature's beauty: serene landscape and (not so) serene gals. on commission, anything. here's one that will freak you and the rest out with that micro inspector mindset, an old fav portrait, an image made entirely of noise : )) http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/2464658280_3bd0caa41f_o.jpg
89
« on: November 25, 2010, 07:13 »
Do the sites check or even care?
why would they? the subscriptions expire the same whoever is clicking. the only reason they might be alerted is that they were always banking on buyers using a lot less than the full capacity of the sub, but you can't tell that to the people can you? especially the contributors. for ppl like ss contributors, this might even be good, more dl's.
90
« on: November 25, 2010, 07:04 »
Canstock, technically best?? surely you cant mean that. Actually I meant the contributor side of the site, years back, not the buyers side as I wasn't a buyer then.
Look! dont matter if its Trad-agency or Micro, an Agency is as good as its Search-engine, thats the heart of any photolibrary business. period.
The CS and DT, searches lay importance on showing series of almost identical images on premiere search-pages, showing incredible lack of variety. This is regarded as one of the most derrogative aspects in any search-engine.
Well that's correct, and I discovered that too. As it isn't mathematically possible to do a relevant search on databases with millions of images, buyers apparently limit themselves partly to the first pages and to visual search (the majority of my DT sales is found by N/A).
Wrong conclusion imho. I used to go thru 20+,30+, 50+ pages (istock) and so did any of my colleagues (about a dozen people). Only previews(lot) are downloaded at the time of the search, those are tried out for a couple of hours. When we saw that a paritcular one works in the layout --> return to the site, go to bookmark and download. No search right before the download.
91
« on: November 24, 2010, 14:56 »
most of it looks like a junkyard. crap lighting, that laughable stuff with inapt models posing as fashionsupermodels, flat gray skin snapshot portraits of semi ugly ppl looking like they didn't want to be photograped at all. Can we see your images?
Sure. I won't post links to portfolio, because thanks, I don't want the net hostility (some psycho ppl got to amazing lenghts), but I can show some shots. Thumbs are crap anyway. What do you want to see?
Nothing would be nice.
Far easier to be critical than creative.
want nothing, but still need to make a remark about missing it. ok, get nothing: " " : )
92
« on: November 24, 2010, 14:49 »
It's gonna become unsustainable for the contributors......
Only if they contribute to microstock as part of their business, which for a very high proportion of contributors is not the case. For the one's that do it for fun, to earn a little extra or just to get a kick out of seeing their images downloaded and maybe used somewhere (  ) sustainability is not an issue, and these are the people (no offence intended to anyone in particular) that cause the problems.
I think your mistaken there. I did talk to some of those 'hobbyists' and they go thru great pain to get stuff accepted because of the relative high technical standards, working for hours on a pic, and that is because they are amateurs, not too handy with photoshop or the camera even if talented, so it's even worse for them. The 'fancy snaphost' category simply gets rejeceted, even if it's a really nice shot, they have too many (complaints at shutterstock f.e. coming up from that direction nowadays)... so I don't think thats gonna work, they are getting fed up. I'v seen those guys posting pics on how they worked hours on a setup with a lightbox, fake grass, and an UTP cable (you get the idea), years ago. It got them decent rewards by their standards. Nowadays it would only get them pissed of at the 3 bucks (if they get lucky) they make on it before it sinks. Lowest minimal wage in the known unverse. They can't run on snapshots, an those won't get accepted. Diluted sales = need for large amount of shots for any income that's not an insult = impossible with luckyshots / impossble for a slow amateur to pum out.
93
« on: November 24, 2010, 14:08 »
Why is it so hard for some to understand that unsustainabilty issue? When that guy at istock said it's unsustainable on their side, that was obvious bullsh*t and an insult to everybody's intelligence. What a shameless bloke ( nice community site, yeah : ). But as the sites get (over)saturated, the micro payments don't pile up most of the time, and it's not worth shooting for it. Heck, it won't even pay for the goddam shutter wear. It's gonna become unsustainable for the contributors, but that won't bother the sites for a long time. The few downloads pile up for them, but not for you.
94
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:51 »
most of it looks like a junkyard. crap lighting, that laughable stuff with inapt models posing as fashionsupermodels, flat gray skin snapshot portraits of semi ugly ppl looking like they didn't want to be photograped at all. Can we see your images?
Sure. I won't post links to portfolio, because thanks, I don't want the net hostility (some psycho ppl got to amazing lenghts), but I can show some shots. Thumbs are crap anyway. What do you want to see?
95
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:32 »
Im not too sure I believe this any longer, buyers going by the thousands, etc. I mean lets face it, if buyers really were abandening ship by the thousands, wouldnt it stand to reason Getty would become mildly worried, theyre accoutable to higher chiefs. Im pretty sure that if it was any truth in this we would have heard of some compromize or something?
Mildly worried? Midldly amused maybe: "Yipee, one micro site gone, next one please" It keeps on making money? "Yipee, it makes money" In short: now that they own it, they don't give a flying fak. They have their main business, they can just push their ideas on how its done, either outcome favors them.
96
« on: November 24, 2010, 12:24 »
"One of the most picky agency in term of photo selection. It is a least, their reputation.
One of the most selective in term of quality, thats for sure..."
nah, they have some nice shots (from 14 milll, duh), but most of it looks like a junkyard. crap lighting, that laughable stuff with inapt models posing as fashionsupermodels, flat gray skin snapshot portraits of semi ugly ppl looking like they didn't want to be photograped at all... they accept any crap if it's technically ok.
97
« on: November 23, 2010, 08:14 »
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.
@ RT... 
...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....
Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.
While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?
I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?
No I don't, but that's what you can measure up when it comes to sales / # of pics. I have a friend who works pretty high rank at big net company so I have decent picture of the stuff that goes on in places like that. That's why I don't fall for 'unsustainable for the site owners' crap and the like... I can't beleive anyone was dumb enough to take that seriuosly even for splitsecond.
98
« on: November 23, 2010, 07:16 »
nice. now the babies will might for the few pixels of blown highlight, and the whole thing not looking like CG : )
99
« on: November 22, 2010, 18:04 »
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.
@ RT...
...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....
Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.
100
« on: November 22, 2010, 06:23 »
Maybe that's not really IS's intention, they are just being stupid. Having contributors as inspectors is an extremely dumb idea to start with. You gonna get the pricks who reject shots out of envy or competiton, and let their the junk get thru anytime. I did browse into on some of these guys shots, looking at recent things, and oops, series of modell shots, almost all that I looked at were OOF, if you panned you could see the focus landed behing the girl's back on the sofa. Looked at another port, zooming in the first image, a family shot, motion blurred, OOF, lots of noise, all at the sime time... grats. The situation is pretty obvious and verrry professional. : )
As for technical issues, IS seems to have like a couple of reviewers that know a bit about images, the rest are some dumbos who went from doing "a spill on isle 5" to happily vawing around his/her first dslr and almost instantly becoming 'JohnJoe photography' with some crap template site... and than landing as inspectors. They give rejections for bad isolation on images that aren't isolated, taking cloth texture for noise... but they don't seem to mind things like last weeks free file that 'beauty shot' where the guy blurred the whole * face, cut few holes for the eyes etc, and filled the rest with texture from some leather suitcase : ) it's horrible. : ) The pohotog had some nice shots otherwise, but IS posting that as a free hires file for everyone to look at what they might offer... pure dilettantism : ) Tipical trait of the clueless amateur is going all zealot on a tiny patch of t noise that no creative would care a rat's ass about, and wouldn't even be visible in print, thinking that busting each pixel is professionalism, but letting thru stuff that makes a graphic artist wanna poke his own eyes out with a rusty nail.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
