|
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 - lthn
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
151
« on: September 01, 2011, 03:52 »
sincere thanks click_click 
corrected: fotooboi(dot)extra(dot)ua/...
Despite its, uhm, hilariously inappropriate tone, it turns out the other poster's comment was helpful, since it made me take another look at what I typed, and now I'll go back & fix it on original post. too. (Oh, and I originally identified it as Czech since, though I could be remembering it incorrectly, the language translator I used for the site referred to that language.)
oh yeah, the translator took it for cyrillic czech : )) you'r american, right? : )
and you must be one of those "poorly 3rdworld hackers operating out of a stick hut " I hear so much about.
yep, I run czech websites from india. watch out!
152
« on: August 31, 2011, 16:10 »
However it should be typed, it would be good if you didn't contribute to the thieves' search engine ranking by typing it exact. In other words, change it to fotoobol(dot)extra(dot).ua/ and then explain to replace the word dot with a period. That way, they don't get free "publicity". Just a suggestion.
Search engine ranking comes from backlinks...
153
« on: August 31, 2011, 16:04 »
sincere thanks click_click
corrected: fotooboi(dot)extra(dot)ua/...
Despite its, uhm, hilariously inappropriate tone, it turns out the other poster's comment was helpful, since it made me take another look at what I typed, and now I'll go back & fix it on original post. too. (Oh, and I originally identified it as Czech since, though I could be remembering it incorrectly, the language translator I used for the site referred to that language.)
oh yeah, the translator took it for cyrillic czech : )) you'r american, right? : )
154
« on: August 31, 2011, 13:11 »
" fotoboi(.)extra(.)ua/"
Why on earth would you type it that way? this isn't youtube you know. Btw the czech don't write in cyril letters, russians and ukranians do. (.ua - ukranian domain) I know its off the main point, but it just freaks me out how utterly uneducated some ppl are.
On topic: bothering with these is a waste of time, and it should be the duty of the stocksites, they can dedicate ppl to this. Lets face it, if you put your pictures to be sold for a few bucks, even the most poorly 3rdworld hackers operating out of a stick hut can dowload and further abuse them, so this will never end.
You might want to check your post for typos... Since you brought up how
... utterly uneducated some ppl are. ...
Nice one... 
so what typos have to do with not even knowing who actually live in country? btw, do you think DMCA works in ukraine? You just gotta love all these super-smart ppl : ))
155
« on: August 31, 2011, 12:54 »
" fotoboi(.)extra(.)ua/"
Why on earth would you type it that way? this isn't youtube you know. Btw the czech don't write in cyril letters, russians and ukranians do. (.ua - ukranian domain) I know its off the main point, but it just freaks me out how utterly uneducated some ppl are.
On topic: bothering with these is a waste of time, and it should be the duty of the stocksites, they can dedicate ppl to this. Lets face it, if you put your pictures to be sold for a few bucks, even the most poorly 3rdworld hackers operating out of a stick hut can dowload and further abuse them, so this will never end.
156
« on: August 31, 2011, 10:46 »
Great post Madgickle!
...And a nice return to topic after quite a bit of ranting and personal attacks
Thanks Lisa.
I have just sent iStock my request to remove my port. I'm hoping that others have been correct in saying that they will pay us what they owe even though the minimum payout has not been reached.
good, good. as for those whining about giving up certain % of their income which comes from istock, they don't even get the utter simple concept that its worth taking a hit to show you protect your interests, or you will be left with nothing later and nowhere to turn. Ppl that shortsighted deserve to shafted till they look like a freakin unicorn. I'v got this song for them: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSJZ12iMzvQ[/youtube]
157
« on: August 31, 2011, 08:50 »
yep. Istock has been pretty much worthless for me, which means I'm pretty much worthless for them too. I'v made whopping 90+$ with them while in the same time I'm nearing the 3000$ tier at shutterstock. For me they are just a sheeitty site and they suck at selling my shots.
158
« on: August 30, 2011, 14:55 »
I have a vision of iStockPhoto-2020...
1. You create images they sell it.
2. You pay a placement fee of 10$ for every image you submit even if it is not accepted (reviewing fee).
3. They define the price of every image or they can share it for free as a promotion anytime they want.
4. You get 1 cent of royalty per download regardless of the price the image has been sold.
5. You can request a payment when you reach 500$ per month... in every month you do not reach the limit, you lose the money.
Welcome in 2020!
Ouch, make that 2015 - I don't see them being that far away from this scenario...
ok, so what are you going to do? heh? 8 )
159
« on: August 30, 2011, 11:39 »
Has any of you read what could be called a 'mission statement' from H&F on their site? Compared to how mildly high level bussinesses őhrase their intenions, imho they are extremely agressive, almost threatening. They basically say that they buy in, squeeze everything out the company, if the current management stands in the way of that operation they will fire them, replace them with their own. They emphaszie that they are very good at delivering this move, and have done it in the past no problemo... then they exit.
Can you post a link to exactly where you're getting that? I don't doubt it, but in reading their "about" section, I don't see that anywhere. Seems pretty mild language to me...
http://www.hf.com/about/index.html
One menuline below http://www.hf.com/about/philosophy.html"...predictable revenue and earnings growth and which generate high levels of free cash flow or attractive returns on the capital reinvested in the business. We generally invest in businesses with strong operating management teams already in place; however, if needed, we have experience in attracting new managers to supplement or replace existing teams..." They write about always having a pretty quick exit strategy somewhere else, sry, I can't get myself to look around for it now.
160
« on: August 30, 2011, 11:33 »
...You ppl go all crazy about ...
You people? So you mean you're not a contributor? You're clearly a member here, so you can't be referring to members here as "you people".
If your point was that there are many different things that anger contributors, that's true, but it's like saying "The sun's hot" - we don't generally need to have that noted as it's taken as a given.
The distinction wasn't made on being a contributor or not. It also wasn't about "being angry" or not, but the reaction to the situation. I think Machiavelli wrote about this, that ppl tend go out of their way to get revenge for uselessly small offenses, and do nothing about the great damaging ones. Crooked politicans build their carriers on that observation.
161
« on: August 30, 2011, 11:23 »
Getty have NO option but to sooner or later enforce a 100% exclusivity, its their ticket to survival, simply because for every exclusive gained its another agencies loss. Thats why. Make no misstake, they are not stupid, they know that among independants, there are just as good, sometimes even better artists who are supplying a whole string of competitors. Getty cant live nor in the long run survive this predicament, its an infamnia and a thorn.
So, whats the answer? well since most independants wont come over freely, they will force us, like with this new contract and the RM contract, etc and as Lisa said, how can you give up 35% of your earnings? well its impossible, isnt it? so we either put up or shutup.
I hope you're wrong Christian. But if you're right, and they do offer and "exclusive or leave" option, I will be leaving. If I have to choose between 35% of my income and 65% of my income, it's no contest.
Forcing a choice like that on independents would be suicide for Istockphoto, IMO. Most of us would leave, I am certain. Even with our stuff still there buyers seem to have left in droves over the past year. When our content disappears from Istock and its partners, buyers will have even more incentive to leave too.
Hi Lisa!
Yep! but it wont stay at 35% of your income though, would it? both me and you, Im sure, positive, would earn a hell of a lot more being exclusive at IS. My own thing about not going exclusive hasnt got anything to do with monies, my problem is: I dont trust their financiers or creditors, etc, you know like H&F, etc, thyre the kind of people who would pull the plug on you if you show a bad year and then what? you dont know where you stand with that sort of people.
Click-click, has got it wrong, financial suicide? not at all and why? simply because most independants with any sizable port and income would in fact go exclusive, if it came to that. At the same time as they benefit from indies turning exclusive, theyre stopping compeeting agencies from earning. Simple.
You see? this is why they have no option but sooner or later enforce exclusivity.
Has any of you read what could be called a 'mission statement' from H&F on their site? Compared to how mildly high level bussinesses őhrase their intenions, imho they are extremely agressive, almost threatening. They basically say that they buy in, squeeze everything out the company, if the current management stands in the way of that operation they will fire them, replace them with their own. They emphaszie that they are very good at delivering this move, and have done it in the past no problemo... then they exit.
162
« on: August 30, 2011, 11:14 »
Ok now stone me to death and call me a troll, but I'd like to point something out about the attitude of most contribs I see around here. You ppl go all crazy about petty "theft" when you see some of your images on the displayed "illegaly", spend time and energy looking them up, bug ppl, IPs and send DMCA notices, all that for something that probably did few cents worth of damage or more likely nothing since it has very little to do with actual sales... but when the agencies keep shafting you to hell, you just sit around and take it, including insults from such worthless abominations as Lobo, just to rub some salt into the wound. Just brilliant.
163
« on: August 25, 2011, 15:26 »
It's a tad repulsive
164
« on: August 24, 2011, 09:39 »
busy bees : ))
165
« on: August 22, 2011, 02:22 »
... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.
You mean the stuff that sells? : )
You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.
I see you think you are the local yoda : ))
Well at least I am fair and open to opinions.
you just denied a handful of mine... : D
166
« on: August 21, 2011, 09:49 »
Tnx I'll try to do that. My PS skills are pathetic, I was just discussing that with a friend of mine half an hour ago. I really have to work on that. Besides I have a ton of models at my disposal, perfect weather, but don't have any good ideas on what and even more, how to shoot, even though I know there's thousands of concepts you can shoot outside in the summer. I really have to get inspired and fast, summer will be over in 10 days 
You may have hit on the two problems right here. Sounds like your concepts are good, and you have access to models. But SS (and the others too to a degree) are increasingly picky about lighting, and appearance of the photo (accomplished in post).
Sounds like you are shooting outdoors in sunny conditions. Living in Florida, I do a lot of that too. Are you modifying your light? I find that shooting in the shade and using a reflector or fill light to make the models pop is a way to really brighten the image. I have not been very happy with the look of images shot in direct sunlight with no modification. If you are already doing that, then the issue must be your post processing, as you suggest.
People will tell you jpeg is as good as RAW. Maybe in perfectly controlled studio situations it is. But shooting outdoors using natural light, you really need the extra manipulation you get with a RAW file. I don't mean fixing mistakes. Garbage in, garbage out. But even on a well shot image, proper post processing will make it look a lot better, and RAW allows you to push the contrast and color without adding artifacts, unlike jpeg. Here's an example:
Oh, and in answer to your original question - lowering commissions is a lot worse. If you are getting rejections, you can improve your images and technical skills to give them what they want. With commission cuts there is absolutely nothing you can do about it short of quitting altogether.
I like the first one lot more to be honest, it only needs the shiny leaf(?) to be removed... and maybe a very slight brightness increase on the faces, but strictly only the faces.
167
« on: August 21, 2011, 03:44 »
... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.
You mean the stuff that sells? : )
You seem to "think" you know all God regarding micro...and rarely can you debate nothing more than your own weakness.
I see you think you are the local yoda : ))
168
« on: August 20, 2011, 03:10 »
I have a very hard time believing that someone of this stature, quality and creativity...
You must be joking.
169
« on: August 19, 2011, 19:05 »
I have an idea, although it is likely just wishful thinking.
Instead of rejecting submissions for "Low Commercial Value", allow them to be added but with a probationary period. No sales after 60 days, and then they'll be removed.
I had a vector that was rejected twice for LCV, and finally approved on the third try. It has sold 35 times now in the past 5 weeks. Not amazing results, but certainly has some value.
Whats the point of that? Why remove quickly after accepting / why accept something you intend to remove? Nonsense... you think they reject stuff because they dont have enough storage?? for gods sake, there is something like 1 gig ftp space for every single contributor (its 4 gigs on some other places, somtimes 1000-3000 pics) They dont want it to be on display, and thats it
The point is that it gives an image a chance instead of being flat out rejected, and I never said anything about having not enough storage.
You never said, but logic implies it. It's either about costs of having the picture, but the shot is already up there, or handling (review) but thats done anyway too, so we are left with them wanting it on display or not. I think you didn't understand what "having it on display" means in this case. SS sells subscription which means the represantational value of a pic is more important to them, they want the site to look convincing enough to make someone buy a subscription, they loose money on most downloads. So reviewing for them is very much about shaping what incoming customers see, making that as attractive as possible... also if they want their 'image' go thru bit of a transformation, thats their tool to do it.
170
« on: August 19, 2011, 18:53 »
Yeah right, only in that bracket he will be compeeting against a gazillion of wanna bees thinking theyre all little Newtons, so whats the point....
Well thats the paradox of microstock, isnt it? Thinly covered niches are such niches because they hardly sell. It's the same misunderstanding as is with model beauty: ppl think they find extreme features attractive, it sounds logical that you need those to stand out, but in reality mass appeal beauty means being super-average in every feature: a nose thats not too short or not too long, a forehead thats not too high or not too low... just right, right in the middle of the spread of possible proportions.
171
« on: August 19, 2011, 09:39 »
... avoid the stereo-type cliche type of shots, boats, cars, supermarkets, behind counters, you know, commercial everyday life.
You mean the stuff that sells? : )
172
« on: August 19, 2011, 04:05 »
I have an idea, although it is likely just wishful thinking.
Instead of rejecting submissions for "Low Commercial Value", allow them to be added but with a probationary period. No sales after 60 days, and then they'll be removed.
I had a vector that was rejected twice for LCV, and finally approved on the third try. It has sold 35 times now in the past 5 weeks. Not amazing results, but certainly has some value.
Whats the point of that? Why remove quickly after accepting / why accept something you intend to remove? Nonsense... you think they reject stuff because they dont have enough storage?? for gods sake, there is something like 1 gig ftp space for every single contributor (its 4 gigs on some other places, somtimes 1000-3000 pics) They dont want it to be on display, and thats it
173
« on: August 19, 2011, 03:58 »
With discipline we could effect buyers habits:
1. Rank the Top 6 microstock sites in terms of Royalty % to contributors;
2. Upload new content only to the #1 microstock site first;
3. Wait 1 month before uploading the same new content to the #2;
4. Wait another month, upload the same new content to the #3;
and so on.....
7. Market the #1 site only on our web pages and in forums.
Buyers looking for fresh, new images would start to gravitate towards the new images on the #1 ranked site, and we would get the better Royalty %.
It takes discipline from us all though!!!
Jesus...., do you seriously think this would do anything? : )) They have 10-15+ million images by now, even if every single contributor did all of the above it would be way too late. I know its blasphemy here in the kindergarten, but I have to say you ppl are severely shortsighted. You only react to a forseeable situation when it already happened, meaning its too late. You watch it all the way coming, but you only say "train!! train!!" when you got smashed by it... I'm sorry but that is just ridiculous and sad at the same time. This was inevitable. Even if the agencies didn't become meaner after securing enough stock, your situation would still suck because of oversupply. It was also pretty darn obvious that the agencies will start shafting you when they can... did they ever look like 'nice people' to anyone above 8? (I guess they did, thats the sad part): )) you'v been told these years a thousand times, but all you did was hiss back.... and now run around in circles whining. Grow up! By now the only real option you have is deleting ports.
174
« on: August 19, 2011, 03:34 »
They'll just keep brainstorimng untill it ends up in a price and comissionn cut, just like everywhere else : )
175
« on: August 09, 2011, 06:48 »
LOL, ok, it's not 500 years. It is basically possible with today's technology...
Oh really? Could you at least vaguely discribe to me the technology the allows us to contain and store any significant amount of anti matter? Just so you know, even handling pure hidrogen is a big problem...
Just a simple magnetic field is able to keep antimatter in a container. The electric power needed to produce and maintain such a magnetic field is completely achievable. I mean, it's possible today, and it's even not so expensive. Antimatter particles are electrically charged, and they act like any other "matter" particles.
"Just a simple magnetic field is able to keep antimatter in a container."  What if not? Are you ready for the bang? Can you elaborate a bit, how strong that field should be to contain stuff floating thru acceleration (remember it keeps its momentum...). What are the mechanics of something like that, huh?? I'm sorry I don't want to be rude but you seriously should start reading some science books, not tabloid news. Some more popular-istic stuff will do, try 'The emperor's new mind' by Roger Penrose for starters and talk to some engineers about how 'simple' things like that really are... like the ITER project f.e.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
