|
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 - pixel8
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
51
« on: September 08, 2016, 02:37 »
Just wondering what others have their monitors set to. For those who have a iMac are you using the iMac, Adobe RGB 1998, sRGB or some other setting for your Color Setting?
My Camera is set to sRGB, for the longest time my monitor would not match my Camera Display when Tethered Shooting. When I checked my color display it was on the Mac setting so I changed it to sRGB and now it matches my camera display, although I am shooting in raw and I believe that the camera display shows the image in jpeg so there should be some difference between the Camera display and the monitor?
Thanks,
52
« on: September 06, 2016, 21:51 »
Does anyone know anything about pixers.nl I see that they have several of my images on their site for sale with canvas, posters and stickers for print like cafe press. Is Pixers associated with any of the regular stock sites?
Thanks
53
« on: August 29, 2016, 21:51 »
Maybe we should all start re-uploading the photos that are missing?
They're still there - just temporarily hidden by broken code. No need to upload (they automatically check for images already in the portfolio and will reject if you try it)
I see you are right as now my images are showing again, lets hope they get this figured out soon, because although my images are up I have been trying different searches on SS and half the time it won't search and bring up anything. Which means our buyers are not getting the service they want which means they are going elsewhere!
54
« on: August 29, 2016, 19:43 »
Maybe we should all start re-uploading the photos that are missing?
55
« on: August 29, 2016, 18:45 »
Ok so today my portfolio went down 1,700 images are missing, has anyone who has experienced this had their images come back up or has SS explained whats going on?
56
« on: August 29, 2016, 00:49 »
I spoke with a owner of a large web developing company in my area recently and he told me that they used to buy from SS a lot but hardly ever now days because SS has been chaining so many things that they can't find the type of images they used to on SS.
57
« on: August 26, 2016, 00:20 »
Well as far as organic search goes they are on page 9 of Google for the keyword "Stock Photos" so thats a total bust in my thinking, I don't know if its just me but I rarely go past page two on any Google Search! After page two it's like you got off the main street and went down the alley.
58
« on: August 26, 2016, 00:10 »
Me too...
Oh for the love of God, I hope they aren't changing the algorithm again ...
LOL That was funny!
59
« on: August 25, 2016, 14:54 »
It is only a API of deposit
Whats an API? I read a little on the site and the owner said he dropped $250K to buy the domain, and then added 57K photos from one photographer.
60
« on: August 25, 2016, 01:48 »
Has anyone ever submitted to stockphoto.com and if so what is your experience good or bad?
61
« on: August 24, 2016, 17:01 »
How do contributors to these sites Pexel & Pixabay make money? I can tell that the sites themselves are making money from ads and donations but it seems as though the photographers are just giving their stuff away!
62
« on: August 18, 2016, 11:09 »
I used to get that message but this time I didn't. I guess there will always be Gimp if it starts again.
63
« on: August 17, 2016, 18:29 »
From my last shoot I have several photos that I am working on that have money involved. Typically Photoshop will not let you edit them now days, how ever I just edited 10 photos and every time photoshop did not stop me, which is great because I didn't have to use GIMP to get the job done.
Did Photoshop reverse their policy?
64
« on: August 08, 2016, 11:25 »
I noticed on the first page of that list that some had 200,000 images but had a negative per day upload and a 2.3 percent sale for country which leads me to think that some of these large contributors are no longer contributing as they begin to realize that despite adding more photos their income is going down!
65
« on: August 08, 2016, 11:21 »
Get a Lawyer and Sue that user for damages. A lawyer will send a cease and desist to the GFX site, between SS and GFX a lawyer will be able to get the users info and take them to court.
66
« on: August 06, 2016, 13:54 »
I worked as a graphic designer for four years and the media company I worked for never bought stock photos, I was either expected to make whatever was needed or to use material provided by the client.
I know however that things have changed since then and one company does not accurately depict all the rest in how they run things. It only makes sense that a media company would buy Stock whenever they can as its cheaper. My dilemma is that I want to market my images directly to Companies, Indi Designers, Etc but I have a limited Marketing budget and I am trying to figure out who is the best targeted audience.
Its hard to know the answer to my question since as contributors you never get to see who is doing the buying!
67
« on: August 05, 2016, 13:02 »
Web designers and graphic designers rarely buy stock. They don't have much of a budget, unless given one by their client. Media companies, technology companies, business organizations, food companies, healthcare companies and full-time bloggers are some of the biggest consumers of stock photography. I read a number of tech news outlets and I see a lot of SS images being used. Just yesterday, I saw a Rawpixel photo in a news story related to employment. I saw at least 30 technology images (photos and vectors) from SS on a website I frequent.
I want to try direct marketing to some of these places, how do you think one could go about direct marketing Bloggers besides using Google Adwords?
68
« on: August 04, 2016, 20:36 »
I am curious to know everyones thoughts as to who is the largest purchaser of stock photos? Media Companies, Web Designers or Individual Graphic Designers. When I look at Media Company Websites I can find Stock Images but when I look at some Individual Web Designer Sites and Graphic Artists I don't see very many if any as their work is more specialized to local small businesses who want work that reflects their own products or business. So who then is driving stock photography in terms of photo consumption or sales?
Thanks!
69
« on: July 15, 2016, 02:59 »
We need to ban trucks.
In 2015, over 13,000 people has been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide.
At least trucks are useful for the world economy and our survival. Can you say the same for a world filled with guns?
Ban all trucks! we can all use bicycles so that if a terrorist or BLM wants to kill some one they might take out just one person instead of 75 or whatever the final toll will be. As your argument to ban guns is exactly the same irregardless of what other economic pluses a truck might have.
70
« on: July 15, 2016, 02:56 »
People kill people because they like it - and they have a gun handy to make it easier to kill more than one.
I carried today when I went out with my entire family to dinner, had pizza and a shake, no one died!
71
« on: July 15, 2016, 02:55 »
I don't need the constitution to tell me thats its my Human right to protect Myself and Family, I choose to own a gun for that very purpose. If you don't want to own a gun and think that by calling the police or lets say using a baseball bat will save your life or families lives in lets say a home invasion which typically involves two or more thugs who are armed then good luck with that, chances are you would wind up dead.
If you think that by outlawing guns ....
Here's the fundamental problem with arguing gun control. Every comment before this one was about control and regulation. Not banning or outlawing. Yet every single time there's an argument, this is the usual response. They turn it into an all or nothing argument. Own a gun, sure. But nationally, consistently, prove you're not a danger to society first. Yes, criminals will get guns somehow. But if you think that dumb criminals won't get caught more often than not, then really there's no point in discussing this further. I don't understand how making it harder for criminals to get guns can be a bad thing (ie. more regulation).
You can get almost any gun you want here in Canada with a few exceptions. The difference is that nationally you have to jump through more hoops to prove that you can be a responsible gun owner. Why? Because we had a mass shooting and changed the laws to make it harder to get a gun. It works, its proven to work. There will always be murder, but why not try and prevent at least some of them?
Maybe you should ask Obama he is the one that allowed for Fast and Furious giving guns to criminals!
That makes no sense to anything I posted. If you read my comment, I'm actually "pro gun". But all you see is regulation=banning and get all hysterical about someone breaking into your home. NO ONE SAID BAN GUNS until you said it first. So your arguments are actually a hijack of the thread. Nicely done.
Sorry I was responding to many people who oppose my statements I misread your post. I do believe there should be metal evaluations as long as the doctors can be unbiased unlike Ginsberg. Otherwise you will get corrupt liberal doctors who hate guns just failing everyone!
72
« on: July 15, 2016, 02:48 »
I'm not wrong, my point was that a person with a handgun can in fact stand up to someone with a automatic assault riffle! He did case closed.
Case not closed. You failed to make the difference between the two defensive positions for which your argument was based on. One, the incident in France where people were held hostage in an enclosed area surrounded by guys with ak47s which made a surprise defense almost impossible, the other, one single guy with an ak47 coming out of a bldg making himself the perfect target for anybody with a gun.
As for being in a building a Handgun is more maneuverable then an assault riffle.
It won't matter if you are in an enclosed area surrounded with guys with ak47s...you're dead
As for the MP he probably was well trained but that doe not mean most of the people serving in the military are well trained, especially when they are new!
What makes you think a civilian can not be as well trained or better trained? Their is no way to back that up, just as with the military there are people with different skill levels.
Again, you either fail to understand or willfully omit the point. When, everything goes to sh!t, it becomes far more important to be able to differentiate the good guys from the bad ones else training won't matters. If there is one lesson to learn from the Philando Castile death, is the fact that the police did not know that he was a good guy because, one of the reasons, he had a gun.
Think about it. Lets say, one day you go down the street and see a civilian running and shooting at someone. And despite not knowing all the facts, you think this guy is bad. You pull your gun and start running after him. And while you run after him, you realized that this guy is running after another guy shooting at someone. And that someone is running at someone else with a gun too. And just before you get shot in the back, as you come close to an open field, you see a battlefield of people shooting at each others. Do you get it?
No two situations are going to be the same, however if you were in France during that attack you would have some sort of chance to defend yourself as compared to none. Terrorists run in with guns shooting, you hit the deck if you are not already dead and pull out your gun and fire back. I'd take those chances as opposed to no gun to fight back with. If you don't get that argument then you frankly have no self survival instinct. I'm not going to give up my natural instinct simply because you have none and want to take away my rights because you believe yours supersede my own. My life matters and so do the ones I love. Your argument convinces me of nothing other then your hell bent determination to bend my will to yours. As for determining who the bad guys are, that would quickly be determined based on who is shooting who and how. Maybe you are slow on reading situations I don't know, but I think if someone comes in blasting people its obvious there not there to give hugs! As for the cops showing up, once they do and the threat is being taken care of you put down your weapon or put it away so that you are not seen as a threat. As for Philando Castile I don't know the details of that situation and was not there so I can't comment on that!
73
« on: July 12, 2016, 23:46 »
Both sides being willing to compromise sounds nice, but what exactly should the side who wants more gun control do to compromise? We've gotten absolutely no concessions from the pro-gun side, who refuse to budge on anything whatsoever. They want terrorists to be able to buy AK47s. People on the no-fly list. People who are kicked out of the military. People who are feeling suicidal or homicidal. People who feel the need to "protect their families" with entire arsenals of weapons. No limits on the number of guns, the clips. No research allowed. No discussion in Congress...they just go on vacation or turn off the cameras.
Small town police forces arm themselves with tanks and military weapons. Cops shoot innocent people of every color to death a few times a day. Mass shootings happen so often it barely makes the news any more.
The pro-gun control side is more reasonable than you'd think reasonable could be. They're so afraid of the Second Amendment they only call for minor concessions--like banning AR-15s for suspected terrorists--that there's no way they'll ask for what we really need, the only thing that will actually make a dent, which is a huge national gun buy back and strict gun controls, which have been put in place by every reasonably civilized country but ours.
Perhaps we should stop describing ourselves as civilized.
There should be licensing and mental evaluation that I can agree with and if we were civilized then yes we would no longer need any weapons but I'm not going to give mine up until everyone does together.
74
« on: July 12, 2016, 23:44 »
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
So something in police doesn't work, so therefore, let's arm all civilians and declare open war on cops? And while we are at it, let's arm ALL civilians with semi- and automatic weapons, so we can show all the innocent bystanders just who's boss. This war is just like a nuclear war...there are no winners. Everybody dies. Is that what should happen? No. What should happen is EVERYBODY puts down their guns and finds some other solutions to all their hate and ignorance. And even if one side tries to make changes, the other side digs in their heels and is not willing to compromise, kind of like when legislators say they want to put firmer gun control laws and regulations in place, the NRA and followers shout at the top of their lungs NO OUTLAWING OF GUNS. Until both sides are willing to compromise, nothing will change and the violence will continue. 
The reason for guns is because its the great equalizer, if granny is faced with some huge 22 year old thug coming into the home who is going to win? Not granny! but with a firearm she stands a chance.
75
« on: July 12, 2016, 23:41 »
When two countries (or any other entities or sides) are at war and you are being fired on, you return fire, you don't care if the guy on the other side has a family, he didn't care if you had. You don't stand and watch or shout "that's wrong!"
I really can't understand a logic where a group of people can fire at other group of people and only one of those groups is entitled to return fire. Police just got a little taste of what they've been doing for a long time and everyone should feel for them? We should be civilized now? Let's talk now, not shoot? Yeah right, tell that to innocent people killed by police, they too have families.
If the police didn't want to get sniped they shouldn't have killed innocent people for fun. Simple as that. If you are policeman and you are innocent and you judge the killing of innocent people, well, step out and say it: "Something in police doesn't work let do something about it" - if you say nothing you as well might be a murderer.
Depends on the case in some instants the cop made the wrong choice, in others the person was reaching for a gun, their are rules and ultimately a cop is going to protect his life if he thinks he is in danger. If the suspect is not following the Cops commands and reaches for a pocket or something then the cop assumes they are armed as it all goes down in a split second. Thats why it's important to follow the cops instructions as they don't know if you are armed weather its a gun or knife. I think unless you have been a cop then you really don't know what they go through and unless you were at a situation you don't really have all the details to make judgement.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
