|
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 - polar
101
« on: June 27, 2015, 16:37 »
I have the Olympus E-M1 and the 12-40mm f2.8 pro lens. Everything about this combo is amazing. The 12-40 is a wonderful landscape lens. Although it's not the widest lens available, I've found it easy to produce excellent stitched panoramas.
The 40-150mm f2.8 pro lens is also stellar. I used it during a shoot in Costa Rica and the feather detail on the hummingbirds and other birds blew me away. The 40-150mm also performs well with the 1.4 teleconverter, which I used quite a bit on that shoot. (The lens is, unfortunately, a bit short for a lot of wildlife shooting.)
Both lenses have a constant aperture throughout the zoom range.
I'm very happy I switched to the Olympus mirrorless system; everything's about half the weight and size of traditional DSLRs and the IQ is superb.
Edited to add: should mention that the E-M1 has in-body stabilization so the lenses are not IS. This makes them less ideal for people who have Panasonic bodies. The 5-axis IBIS is pretty terrific though; I can shoot handheld at much lower speeds than I could with my previous gear.
102
« on: May 27, 2015, 22:47 »
I just caught up on Monday's Springwatch Unsprung (A BBC nature programme).
Martin LeMay, the weaselpecker bloke, was on, and his image raised over 2000 for charity from the newspapers who published it.
So it wasn't as if he undercut other photographers, he just didn't take the money himself.
Good to hear that someone benefited from the use of the photo. I had a good laugh at the term "weaselpecker." Great coinage -- both apt and hilarious.
103
« on: May 12, 2015, 10:58 »
The best response ever to a request for free work is by David Thorne over at 27b/6:
http://www.27bslash6.com/p2p2.html
This is a my favorite from David:
http://www.27bslash6.com/missy.html
Some of those email exchanges are really hilarious. His deft skill in deflecting the point being made by the other party puts me in mind of some email exchanges I've had with Contributor Relations departments, although theirs are not nearly as clever or funny.
104
« on: March 21, 2015, 14:11 »
Also, I've done my share of research on this - the best option to minimize conversion fees is:
1. Open a US account with your Canadian bank
2. Open a regular savings and a US savings account with Tangerine (former ING direct)
3. Get the stock agency to send you a cheque (not all of them have that option though)
4. Deposit the cheque to the US account with your bank
5. Transer the money from your bank to Tangerine US account
6. Convert US to CAD by moving the money from US savings to CAD savings - their exchange rate used to be 1% better than Paypals (1.5% versus 2.5% on top of the real exchange rate), now it's a bit worse since Scotiabank bought it but their rate is still better than Paypal's
7. Transfer your CAD back to your Canadian bank
1% doesn't seem to be worth all the hassle, but when you exchange 10,000 it a $100. Plus, while the money is sitting on your US account with your bank, you're getting some (really pathetic) interest (paypal has none).
Unfortunately, at my current rate of return at iStock, the amount of time it would take to earn $10,000 is longer than my expected lifespan. :-(
105
« on: March 21, 2015, 10:47 »
I have a US account with RBC Bank (USA). The bank is in the US. The bank charges me a 3$/month fee, however. If I had more $ in the account the fee would probably be waived. I had opened this account to avoid conversion fees. I was also told in the past that I couldn't use the Canadian RBC US dollar account because Paypal would pay in the currency of the country the bank was based in (i.e. if you select Canada as the country, your US dollars would get converted to Canadian by Paypal and then the bank would convert them back to US dollars...). At least that was my understanding -I never actually tried it. I also didn't try using the Canadian US dollar bank account and identifying it as a US based account as was reported above. It might be worth a try for easier access to your $.
John
What you've said here is more in line with what PayPal told me -- i.e. the USD bank account has to be physically located in the US to transfer USD without conversion. I was actually more interested in the possibility of putting USD into the PayPal account than transferring it to my bank account. My earnings from iStock are too pitiful to worry about repatriating them but the PayPal account is useful for buying things online in USD.
106
« on: March 20, 2015, 22:28 »
I dont undeerstand why the rate of the canadien vs usd is not the same. I transfert cash 3 week ago and the rate was 1.26 but for paypal the rate is Exchange rate:
1 U.S. Dollar = 1.2297 Canadian Dollars
I think i will stop using paypal. Just take a look of your rate and let me know is paypal is fair with you
Hi!
The solution I found is to open a USD Canadian banking account with RBC (Royal Bank). There are some steps to follow to correctly link the account to paypal afterward:
1- Log into PayPal and click on My Account, then Withdraw followed by Transfer funds to your bank account. In the Withdraw Funds by Electronic Transfer page click on 2- Add Bank Account.
3- In the Add a Bank Account page, select United States as Country and type in Royal Bank of Canada as the Bank Name.
4- Enter the 9-digit routing number exactly as suggested by the graphic. Royal Banks routing number is 026004093.
5-Since the trick is to get the account number correct, ignore the example suggested by the graphic. Instead, enter the five-digit transit number of your account followed by your actual account number. You can also get the exact sequence of numbers (transit number followed by account number) from your monthly statement or online.
6-Re-enter the account number and click Continue. Wait for PayPal to make two small deposits into your bank account and then confirm that you have added the bank account successfully in PayPal by entering how much was deposited.
7- Once confirmed, your US-dollar account will show up in the To field in the Withdraw Funds page and you should be able to transfer funds in US dollars into your USD chequing account.
Using this I get the withdrawal process Faster, with no Fees, and I do the conversion (or not) in my RBC account.
I have a USD account at a Canadian bank and I wanted to be able to move USD in both directions without converting the funds. I asked PayPal about linking my Canadian USD bank account to my PayPal USD account and they said it can't be done. That was several months ago. Have things changed? Can you send USD in both directions?
107
« on: February 27, 2015, 09:56 »
I'd be interested in knowing when your iStock incident happened. I had the same experience recently and it took me a long time to get an answer about why they sold one of my deactivated images. ...
I received a royalty adjustment Oct 10, 2014. The files had been deactivated in February 2013. The e-mail about the adjustment just said the files "..were recently licensed..."
I got notes in October and November thanking me for my patience and saying they were working with other teams to get answers. Then a long gap to February 9, 2015 when they acknowledged that they'd bungled the check to ensure the images were active. They never told me the date of the transaction, only that these were extended licenses.
The timing on yours was concurrent with mine, even the long gap in getting an answer. They didn't tell me the date of the transaction either. Let's hope they've learned a lesson from this and it won't happen again. But it still bothers me that my deactivated images are somehow available and vulnerable to such "mistakes." I don't understand why they don't just delete deactivated images from their database; that way, there's no room for "mistakes."
108
« on: February 27, 2015, 00:50 »
I think all the EPUK concerns seem relevant and a total overreach by Alamy.
I think that once an image is removed from an agency, they should never be able to issue new licenses to prior licensors of that image. I talked with iStock/Getty about this when they paid me some money for "off web site" licenses - initially without telling me anything about what licenses or which images.
It turned out that two of the three images had been removed by me (I have only a tiny portion of my portfolio there any more). They said it was OK because it was just adding on to licenses that had been previously granted while the images were active. I told them they had no right to make any licenses of those images to anyone after I deactivated them and I wanted their acknowledgement that they would not do this again (I wasn't going to make a legal stink over two licenses and $60). That they should get Getty's lawyers to look at this if necessary.
After months they acknowledged that it had been a mistake. They are supposed to check that an image is still active before issuing such licenses but they messed up in this case.
I'd be interested in knowing when your iStock incident happened. I had the same experience recently and it took me a long time to get an answer about why they sold one of my deactivated images. They finally told me exactly what they told you -- it was a mistake; they were supposed to check if the images had been deactivated etc. If your case occurred before mine, it sounds like they're not trying very hard to avoid making this mistake. And, of course, I got no assurances that it won't happen again (not that I'd necessarily put much faith in such assurances anyway.) This is very worrying because, in addition to the problems related to future control of your images being discussed here, you can never be sure that deactivated images won't end up being used in inappropriate ways. I had planned to start submitting images to Alamy but this would definitely be a showstopper for me. If they want to do something like this, why can't they just ask the photographer if he/she wants to allow the additional licensing? And abide by the answer, of course.
109
« on: February 17, 2015, 18:18 »
I was pretty excited about this business back in 2008 when I was new and sales were growing with the number of uploads. But those days are over. Prices are going down and our royalty hasn't even been adjusted for inflation. Sales are going down as well. So it's pretty hard to stay positive. 
But I'm glad for you if you still have faith in this business. 
I recall that when I first started IS around 2004, they had a "future royalty" calculator on the web site. I have no idea about the assumptions that went into this thing, but I'm guessing they were, shall we say, overly rosy. Every time I ran it, I saw my "future royalties" rising into the stratosphere. It was a nice fantasy. GIGO in action.
110
« on: January 25, 2015, 11:04 »
Thanks Pixsol!
But I too am a bit confused as to my status as it were. I'm in Italy where I MUST be vat registered for any trading activity at all which exceeds a very low level. I'm not a company in any real sense - it's just me and a vat (iva) number. Anybody any idea whether this counts as a Company for Istock purposes? Payments etc still just come to my personal bank account etc....
Don't forget the "foreign" TIN (Tax identification number) should be your social security or national insurance number ~ it took me a while to figure that out
In the UK, your NI number is not your UTR. Your Unique Tax Reference number is, for example, near the top right of the first page of your Self Employed (short) (SES1) tax return.
Yes I know I tried using the 10 digit UTR but it would not accept it and then I tried the NI number and it accepted that.
Correction it seems other people on the iS forum did what I did which is copy and paste their UTR which was not accepted but then if they typed the UTR it did accept it. Just resubmitted the form with a typed UTR and it worked.
Sigh... 
In my case, as I was copying my UTR number from a scan of my SES1, it didn't accept it first time because I'd put a space in the middle, as on the form; but when I removed the space, it went through.
The Canadian number is often written with hyphens between sets of numbers but this is not accepted. You have to write all the numbers together -- no hyphens, no spaces -- before it will be accepted.
111
« on: January 25, 2015, 10:57 »
Thanks, Fairplay, for flagging this site: http://imgkid.com It's absolutely terrible!
They claim to have 9,000,000 images on the site, which is nearly impossible to search through to see if any are yours. And you have to search by brief verbal description because you don't even see the image until you click the verbal description button.
The worst thing is, they admit they do not own the copyright to any of these 9,000,000 images, that they can't help you find the copyright owner, and that the image "should be freeware" but may not be.
Geez.
There is a search link at the bottom below the verbal descriptions that allows you to search the library by keyword.
112
« on: January 24, 2015, 00:49 »
I did the tax interview, but I don't see where to pick the payment method for new payout structure. Anybody know that?
Mine came up immediately I'd finished the tax interview.
I had to do it twice: the first time it said I had no payment method selected, the second time 'fixed' it.
Mine didn't come up automatically and I didn't even know I needed to do this until I read the comments here. I also had to do it twice to get it to stick. Why does nothing ever work properly on the site?
113
« on: January 23, 2015, 17:03 »
I realize reading this anguished English is a form of torture, but all the rules are (I think) on the IRS instructions for form W-8ben, should you want to go back and re-read details or see if you need to change something in the future
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw8ben.pdf
Thanks for this link. I took a quick look at the document and yes, it is indeed a torture to read. In one section, it says you may be considered a US resident for tax purposes depending on the "number of days you are physically present in the US over a period of three years" and refers to yet another document for details. In another section, it mentions people who stay in the States for more than 183 days in a calendar year. I know Canadian "snow birds" (seniors who spent most of the winter in Florida or Arizona) have to be careful how long they stay or they will be taxed. None of this applies to me at the moment so I'll revisit it if I plan any longish trips down there. But I wouldn't be working down there in any event.
114
« on: January 23, 2015, 13:35 »
I just filled mine out. I noticed there was one question asking whether "you've been in the US in the past two years." It so happens I haven't been so I checked no. But I might make some short visits there in the next few years if the Canadian dollar ever recovers :-(. It says you're supposed to update the form if anything you've said "becomes incorrect" so does that mean I have to update this form every time I take a trip to the US?
I had a big think about whether my three days in San Diego en route to Baja counted, but apparently not when I read the small print.
Where's the small print? Can I see it now that I've already completed the form?
Can't remember, and I'm not sure if it was actually 'small', but there were definitions on that page.
I think you'd need to check yourself if you can go back to see.
Okay, thanks. I have no plans to visit the US in 2015, so I'll just let it go for now. When I make a trip down there, I'll go back to the form and see if I need to update it. I assume that what they're really looking for are people who stay in the States for longer periods of time and/or do some work there, not people who go for a week or two on vacation. Can you recall the gist of what you read that made you conclude that your three-day stopover didn't count?
115
« on: January 23, 2015, 13:01 »
I just filled mine out. I noticed there was one question asking whether "you've been in the US in the past two years." It so happens I haven't been so I checked no. But I might make some short visits there in the next few years if the Canadian dollar ever recovers :-(. It says you're supposed to update the form if anything you've said "becomes incorrect" so does that mean I have to update this form every time I take a trip to the US?
I had a big think about whether my three days in San Diego en route to Baja counted, but apparently not when I read the small print.
Where's the small print? Can I see it now that I've already completed the form?
116
« on: January 23, 2015, 12:43 »
I just filled mine out. I noticed there was one question asking whether "you've been in the US in the past two years." It so happens I haven't been so I checked no. But I might make some short visits there in the next few years if the Canadian dollar ever recovers :-(. It says you're supposed to update the form if anything you've said "becomes incorrect" so does that mean I have to update this form every time I take a trip to the US?
118
« on: January 06, 2015, 14:09 »
I agree with that, but for sake of argument, lets say you dont want or cant spend money on a Canadian tog, how do you find stock images shot by a Canadian photographer? I think on IS the country of the photographer is mentioned? On Shutterstock it is. So you need to search for the image you want and then check every photographer's profile to find one from Canada. Seems cumbersome.
Yes, it would take some effort. I think they ought to make the effort, given their mandate. Really, how much work would it take to identify a group of Canadian photographers whose images they like? A low-level staffer could probably do it with a couple of days work. Once they do this, they can go back to these portfolios when they need more work. They could even ask those photographers to produce specific stock images that would meet their needs. I'm also very skeptical that they don't have enough money to hire a few Canadian photographers from time to time. It would be peanuts compared to some of the other things they spend money on. They're just taking the cheap and easy path because they can.
119
« on: January 06, 2015, 13:45 »
It's true that generic images from wherever can probably get the job done. For me, the issue here is the irony that a Canadian government department supposedly tasked with fostering and promoting Canadian cultural industries is too cheap and/or lazy to make sure they buy Canadian pictures or, heaven forbid, actually commission a Canadian photographer to take the pictures.
I guess it's as one of the comments below the story noted: "Why should the government pay massive amounts of money for "Canadian arts" when stock images are available, cheap, and 99.999% of people can't tell the difference? It is like buying no-name toilet paper vs. the fancy stuff."
Not that they'd be likely to pay "massive amounts of money" in any case.
122
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:41 »
Now the error message is: "Gateway Timeout The proxy server did not receive a timely response from the upstream server." It isn't the first time they've had problems with giving a "timely response." 
123
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:36 »
Same here. Ontario, Canada.
124
« on: February 28, 2014, 01:12 »
I got this email too. If they're sending it to me, they must be sending it to everyone because I'm the smallest of small players on IS.
I don't have an iPhone but I do have an iPod touch with a camera. AFAIK, you can download most iPhone apps to the iPod. Haven't had a chance to check this out yet. Anyone know offhand if it's possible to send them images from the iPod or is there some wrinkle that requires them to come from an iPhone?
125
« on: March 24, 2013, 10:11 »
Cobalt wrote: "Google bought a license. The RF license does not expire."
One point - the regular IS license does not expire. We do not know what the license to Google consists of, and they refuse to tell us.
I know I've read several times that the Google license is "time-limited" but I've never seen any information from Getty about how limited "time-limited" is. Someone posted on iStock in January that his/her statement read: "Posted Fri Jan 11 5:46AM I found some of my Photograper's Choice RF images added to Google drive. I checked the Getty statements to see any purchase and I found them: Product Type: Premium Access Time Limited Customer Name: Google eCommerce & Google Dri" http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&messageid=6817023
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
