|
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 - Sedge
51
« on: December 23, 2013, 19:37 »
Yes, I am implying: if you have a hard time with fotolia you need start thinking about gathering some skills.
And with that condescending statement, you can now lay claim to the dubious honor of being MSG's resident village idiot. Congratulations!
Really? Explain why.
Wow, you just proved my point. Such delicious irony...
I get nostalgic about exchanges like this. They take me back to kindergarten.
Okay, now be honest... How many times did your teacher make you sit in a corner? 
52
« on: December 23, 2013, 19:23 »
Yes, I am implying: if you have a hard time with fotolia you need start thinking about gathering some skills.
And with that condescending statement, you can now lay claim to the dubious honor of being MSG's resident village idiot. Congratulations!
Really? Explain why.
Wow, you just proved my point. Such delicious irony...
53
« on: December 23, 2013, 18:57 »
Yes, I am implying: if you have a hard time with fotolia you need start thinking about gathering some skills.
And with that condescending statement, you can now lay claim to the dubious honor of being MSG's resident village idiot. Congratulations!
54
« on: December 02, 2013, 17:03 »
Mantis, was just wondering how many images do you have on Alamy?
55
« on: November 28, 2013, 22:32 »
The good news: the forum's working fine for me in both FF and Chrome. The bad news: the forum is not working in Safari (goes to the top of the current page instead of the last post). This is happening on both my desktop and iPad. Hope this helps. 
56
« on: November 22, 2013, 13:37 »
Why don't you just quit responding altogether?
57
« on: November 22, 2013, 13:29 »
I'm having the exact same issue as Chromaco described in his original post; everything's getting re-directed to the top of the current page for any given thread. Then I have to scroll down to find the most recent posts.
58
« on: November 20, 2013, 21:48 »
I guess the bug is still alive and kicking. Can't access my Dashboard or Workspace. Very frustrating... 
59
« on: November 14, 2013, 15:51 »
Something doesn't add up for me in all this. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly?
It is all very strange.
Didn't you hear? iStock recently hired Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. 
60
« on: October 31, 2013, 14:53 »
Still no stat updates for me since the 25th, although I can see daily sales on "My Uploads" page. Deep Meta isn't showing current stats either. What's going on?
61
« on: October 14, 2013, 18:53 »
Definitely seeing a bump UP on SS and 123. The rest are about average for the year.
62
« on: October 13, 2013, 20:20 »
Fritz is a cat, not a fox...
63
« on: October 06, 2013, 00:10 »
Scott, thanks for the feedback...
64
« on: October 05, 2013, 21:10 »
Question regarding this Offset image: http://www.offset.com/photos/60931My question to the group and Scott: Are model release forms required for this type of image?
66
« on: September 30, 2013, 18:19 »
I'm enjoying this discussion, but perhaps it should have its own thread?
67
« on: September 24, 2013, 18:31 »
68
« on: September 24, 2013, 17:35 »
Canonbabe, I don't even have a cell phone let alone a smart one. (I am over 50 though). 
69
« on: September 23, 2013, 01:36 »
4) Not a lot of conceptual work: A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague. Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results. I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures
I don't understand why anyone would use "conceptual" as a keyword. What would it look like? How could I photograph it? All the other keywords you mentioned are definitely concepts in my opinion so I would disagree with your conclusion that there is not a lot of concept work.
First, I'd ask that you re-read this part of my original post: "A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague." I wouldn't expect someone to do a search using just the single word "conceptual." However, the use of the word as a keyword for microstock imagery is fairly common. For example, doing a keyword search for just the word "conceptual" in Shutterstock will present you with 461,726 results. Obviously, a serious search would involve employing multiple keywords, but never-the-less that's a heck of a lot of photographers incorporating the keyword "conceptual" into their images' metadata. Is there a lot of "conceptual" imagery on Stocksy? Not when compared to their collections of lifestyle, travel, food, holidays, business, seasonal, etc. It's really not a big deal anyway; what they have is very good and it's sure to grow. Perhaps what I should have stated in my original post is that a lot of what I call "conceptual" imagery involves heavy post-processing: image manipulations, composites, CGI, etc.; for example the kind of wonderful stuff that John Lund does. You won't find this type of imagery on Stocksy (at least I couldn't find any). Hopefully this should clarify my point #4.
70
« on: September 21, 2013, 22:51 »
I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy: 1) Over-saturation of colors: Actually, quite the opposite. A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you. Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc. 2) Very little post-processing: I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop. 3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects: For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera. No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery. 4) Not a lot of conceptual work: A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague. Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results. I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures. 5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera: No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc. There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection. 6) There's very little HDR imagery. 7) No illustrations (yet). I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list. What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles: 1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration. Lighting is often soft and subtle. 2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look." There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing. This isn't a criticism. This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television. The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree ( http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29). 3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality. It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells. Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please). I'm really rooting for Stocksy. Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.
71
« on: September 19, 2013, 14:26 »
Can't argue with that!
72
« on: September 19, 2013, 14:14 »
Just two more hummingbird images, neither one remarkable. 
73
« on: September 18, 2013, 14:42 »
I think that ShadySue is correct when she says that Stocksy is primarily a lifestyle site. When I do a search for "Landscapes" or "Seascapes" what I mostly see are flat and washed-out images; kind of reminds me of depressing Soviet era architecture.
74
« on: August 22, 2013, 14:10 »
Tab62, If you're willing to upgrade to an Epson 1400, InkjetMall offers great 3rd party inks for that printer. The inks are a fraction of the cost of the original Epson Claria inks that are supplied with the 1400. You can find more info on them by checking out the various inkjet user groups in Yahoo's forums. Although I have no personal experience with the company (I print on a 24" Epson 7600), I've read a lot of positive on-line reviews. You can check out the website at http://shopping.netsuite.com/inkjetmall. You can also do a Google search for ConeColor inks for unbiased reviews. Good luck!
75
« on: July 25, 2013, 23:49 »
Me three; the same four days in June.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
