|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 77
151
« on: March 13, 2012, 11:29 »
I like IStock's "abusive inspiration" policy.
"It may not be illegal but we don't like to see other artists work being cannibalized" is a good attitude in a stock agency, as long as it is fairly applied.
Two things spring to mind when I read this: Firstly it's a bit 'two faced' IMO to make such a statement whilst at the same time openly publish the download figures of the files letting everyone know what the big sellers are. And as I've said before every agency would appear to encourage 'creative inspiration' by flaunting what's selling well to it's contributors. And secondly the very popular opinion amongst stock shooters who have been doing this since before micros started is that iStocks (and every other micro) success is down to certain (name no names  ) contributors copying images from Getty et al.
152
« on: March 10, 2012, 07:14 »
I am with Paypal, not bank transfer. Maybe I should switch. I am with BofA too, so I guess I would already have my money if I had opted for bank transfer.
Alamy use Citibank which being an American based bank might mean you get your transfers quicker.
153
« on: March 10, 2012, 06:01 »
This is the danger. People get all worked up, claiming someones image is "original" and someone else's is a copy. They get reported to a stock library who probably don't really care (there is no money in investigating these things thoroughly) and someone has their account suspended. So forgive me for not woo-haying that someone just had their account terminated, lost income for being too close for comfort for some anonymous forum poster's taste without it being clear who was first with the concept/idea and where exactly the line for copying is - it is quite evident that there is more than one copy-cat in this case, who is really the original, who was first, whom inspired whom.... This is a minefield, similarities can be deliberate or coincidental - I don't support DELIBERATE copy-cats, but leave room for honest mistakes, error in judgement as to where the line is is really drawn.
This is the real danger, I've seen images of my own being used for 'creative inspiration' some of which were done by someone extremely well known in microstock, and I've created images that I've later seen are very similar to someone else's. Like many other I don't advocate taking somebody else's work and making an identical copy however I challenge anybody here (most notably the OP) to put up their portfolio for scrutiny by others to see if any of their images are similar to another - "original" - image somewhere on the internet. And I firmly believe that any agency that publishes 'most popular', 'best sellers' or displays the download figures of images but then takes the easy way out by just closing/suspending accounts that are challenged are the real culprits in the alledged 'copy-cat' fiasco.
154
« on: March 08, 2012, 11:09 »
It's my belief that they employ reviewers who have no experience of the stock photo industry but who are just following guidelines that have been given to them, I've had a few rejections with remarks/suggestions about what I should do with the image, which in each case clearly showed the reviewer was clueless about stock, I resubmitted them with a note as to why the reviewer is wrong and every time they've been approved almost instantly. I did this yesterday and it was approved almost instantly and as it happened the image them sold with a couple of hours.
If I was to hazard a guess I'd say they're using a cheap service agency in somewhere like India to do the initial bulk reviewing and then a real reviewer to look at any that come back.
155
« on: March 07, 2012, 10:07 »
Its a lovely font similar I suppose to the ever popular Helvetica 25 Ultra Light. Its called RNS Camelia.
I think you are wrong. I can just see the look on my clients face if I had used the exact same style design as their biggest competitor. I would be in trouble for sure! In this example the font is fairly unique and a very dominate part of the design.
If I were your client you'd be in trouble for not knowing which font you used - Corbis haven't used RNS Camelia
156
« on: March 07, 2012, 09:21 »
As for so! Well I think its a little embarrassing for Corbis to copy this way. Would Pepsi use the same font as Coco cola? That's an extreme example maybe but typography is an important design element.
Let's put this into some perspective, we're not talking about a logo we're talking about some text they've applied over an image to promote an internal collection, I very much doubt either iStock, Corbis or 99% of the worlds population give a *&%$ about it being the same font.
157
« on: March 07, 2012, 07:34 »
So?
158
« on: March 07, 2012, 07:31 »
Shoot in RAW then there's no argument
159
« on: March 07, 2012, 05:08 »
That's why they're in the middle tier, when they don't 'stay that way' they'll drop into the lower tier  .
160
« on: March 06, 2012, 12:21 »
Does Mk III have the same batteries as Mk II ?
I have twp Mk II bodies in my bag (the other one is a backup). If I buy a Mk III, I will have one Mk II as a backup. But I would not like to start charging and carrying around two types of batteries...
Yep, they both use the LP-E6 battery. They may have upgraded the quality of the battery, but the physical size and set up of the battery are the same.
Different battery grip though, which is a shame, guess it brings them a few more dollars in.
161
« on: March 05, 2012, 19:22 »
^ Well you know what - remove your images from the site then you'll (and the rest of us) will be happy, geez how many more people have to tell you you're in the wrong here. No i got that and it is irrelevant.
Here is why.
type in stock photo storage and this is what you get. https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=stock+photo+storage
Now this doesn't have anything resembling a storage shed on the first page at all, it has lots of places to get stock photos storage places cheese storage but no sheds.
Now type in stock photo storage shed and this is what you get. https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=stock+photo+storage+shed
Look there are actually "STORAGE SHEDS" to be found on the first page the entire first page has a storage shed image to be found!
So how does leaving out a phrase help in the search? It doesn't it actually hurts because it doesn't search for what there is to be searched for.
And here's a real eye opener for you, enter the separate words 'storage' and 'shed' in the search box on CanStockPhoto and you'll never guess what the results are I'll put you out of your misery - images with 'storage sheds' in them, well who'd have thought it eh!
162
« on: March 04, 2012, 17:38 »
I just noticed they always add those, IMO totally useless, keywords at the end: stock image, images, royalty free photo, stock photos, stock photograph, stock photographs, picture, pictures, graphic, graphics. IN other words, they're willfully, intentionally spamming our images with weak and irrelevant (graphic etc) keywords
I wouldn't call it spamming and IMO they're not worthless either, as I understand it they do that to help your images to be picked up in a Google search for when somebody searches for example: 'stock photo' of a xxxxxx. Incidentally most agencies do the exact same thing but you don't see the words in your list. And as they add these keywords to every single applicable file for every contributor it does you and everyone else no harm whatsoever.
163
« on: March 02, 2012, 16:59 »
Actually I don't care if anyone prefers to be anonymous or not, I only wish to know my own ranking.
Perhaps a possible solution is, let each user log in and check our own ranking.
Same here and good suggestion.
164
« on: March 02, 2012, 11:37 »
Automatic usually within 24hrs
165
« on: March 02, 2012, 07:48 »
166
« on: March 02, 2012, 07:40 »
What am I missing here that I should not be yawning about this?
Multiple Exposures
All of these are an improvement over the 5D2, I'll very interested in the 'multiple exposure', by which I presume it's a digital version of what we could do in film by not advancing the frame.
serious? really? You can do this fast and much more controlled in PS I wouldn't spend a cent more for this kind of feature.
Yes I was serious (although it doesn't look like they added it) but not for the reasons you're thinking, in the old days of film the ability to stop the film advancing and multiply expose the same frame meant that you could take a photo at a settings that were ordinarily impossible for the amount of light available without having to 'push' the film (therefore creating large amounts of grain) or compromise DoF or shutter speed. You'll have heard of the sunny 16 rule whereby on a sunny day at f16 your shutter speed should match your film (ASA or ISO) rating, now imagine for whatever reason you need to apply those settings to the camera but you need to take the photo at night, being able to multiply expose the same frame of film until you've done it enough times to gather enough light for a correct exposure was the way you did it, you can't do that in digital using Photoshop or HDR because something has to compromise. I'm not the best at explaining things so I hope you understand what I mean. Though if all you want to do is add the same person/object in the image at a different position then you're correct it's easier to do that now in PS, you could do that in film but you had to compensate by underexposing the film for the bits that weren't moving.
167
« on: March 02, 2012, 07:20 »
Wrong! microstockers only, do not need tons of pixels, youre uploading JPGs, and any 12MP, cam will do nicely.
You're wasting your breath, having read most the replies here and on the other thread it's clear that a lot of people are only interested in one thing - big MP numbers - forget the fact that Canon have taken an already good camera and improved on it's minor flaws, most aren't interested in the quality of the image or usability of the camera they just want big MP's, no doubt a few drive cheap cars with big engines
168
« on: March 01, 2012, 15:33 »
What am I missing here that I should not be yawning about this?
22.3 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS sensor - Versus 21MPin the MII? Yawn
DiG!C 5+ Image Processor What's the benefit here? Yawn
61-point high-density reticular AF (up to 41 crosstype points) I had a D300 with 51pt autofocus and it was nice but I don't miss it. Yawn
6.0 fps for high continuous shooting Don't need it and any pro that needs performance will get a 1DX. Yawn
Multiple Exposures This is worth $3K?
All of these are an improvement over the 5D2, I'll very interested in the 'multiple exposure', by which I presume it's a digital version of what we could do in film by not advancing the frame.
Plus the HDR thing but I'll reserve judgement until I see it, personally I'm not a huge fan of HDR
See above responses. Then go look at the D800 specs for $3K.
I'm guessing that like me Canon weren't aware they had to design an upgrade that suited you personally, I was just pointing out the improvements over the existing 5D2, buy one, don't buy one, buy a Nikon I don't really care.
169
« on: March 01, 2012, 12:59 »
What am I missing here that I should not be yawning about this?
22.3 Megapixel Full Frame CMOS sensor DiG!C 5+ Image Processor 61-point high-density reticular AF (up to 41 crosstype points) 6.0 fps for high continuous shooting Multiple Exposures All of these are an improvement over the 5D2, I'll very interested in the 'multiple exposure', by which I presume it's a digital version of what we could do in film by not advancing the frame. Plus the HDR thing but I'll reserve judgement until I see it, personally I'm not a huge fan of HDR
170
« on: February 28, 2012, 17:10 »
You could get a doctor to pose with a model, but like any other profession, as the images can be used or altered in practically any way, why would they agree to that?
Last year my youngest had a minor op, I got talking to the staff and they let me take a few generic photos to use as backdrops, they said the hospital is quite often hired for photo and film shoots but none of the staff are allowed to be used in any of the shots.
171
« on: February 28, 2012, 16:58 »
Less than 24hrs for review, but lately it then takes about a year for them to be viewed by any buyers!
172
« on: February 28, 2012, 16:55 »
Personally I think the iStock selection are far better than the Getty one's, but then again I always think that, and then I always think that it's deliberate to do so.
I'm not sure you'd be able to sell a RF medical photo with anything other than 'posed' models because the doctors over here have a legal obligation to respect patient confidentiality and I believe in this instant (like some other legal technicalities) it's not something the patient is able to legally waive themselves. Might be different in other countries of course.
As for not being true to life, a couple are bad but the others seem alright and having been through a few of the procedures in the photos myself I can say that some are spot on. As someone who has shot stock for most of his life I'm surprised you're shocked that the shots may be staged, I'd hazard a guess that 95% + of all RF photos on all agencies macro and micro are staged in some way or another.
173
« on: February 23, 2012, 17:58 »
Glad to hear than one of the Shutterstock bugs appears to have been fixed but I've uploaded 10 images today, all went through FTP but only 5 have made it into my 'clips and images to be submitted' folder on the site, and still no sign of the batch that I originally posted about.
174
« on: February 23, 2012, 17:52 »
I have the opposite problem. Notebooks filled with ideas, and absolutely NO desire not enough time to shoot them.
Ditto apart from my amendment.
175
« on: February 23, 2012, 17:49 »
^ It may be a case where the polls don't reflect accurate statistics for vector only portfolios, I'm guessing the majority of voters have a mainly photo based portfolio. Having had a look at the list it appears that there are eight sites in the list that are vector or video only sites.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
