|
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 - louoates
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31
626
« on: August 03, 2008, 10:33 »
Yes, I got the apology also. Seemed sincere but we'll see if necessary changes will occur. I think I got the apology because I chimed in on the SFX blog with my displeasure.
At this point I'll wait until Monday or so to see what the new intents will be.
627
« on: August 01, 2008, 10:56 »
It strikes me that this whole StockXpert experience is another example of the folly of exclusivity. Thankfully we still have options. For me StockXpert is a small part of my revenue (actually growing a bit after I opted out of their subs.) So it's a simple matter to say, "no thanks, I'll be on my way."
We have nearly zero influence on any one management's decisions unless they are so over the top that masses of contributers pull out. Go on their forum and you see a large but vocal group extremely unhappy and vowing to pull their images. I'm sure there's a critical mass at some point that will change management's mind. Sometimes you've got to put down the 2x4 and pick up a 2x8 to get the donkey's attention.
If you haven't voiced your opinion on their forum yet now is the time.
628
« on: August 01, 2008, 10:40 »
Sorry about your family's loss lisafx.
629
« on: July 31, 2008, 19:37 »
Sane minds at StockXpert will prevail in the end. The fury they caused so far will pale when the bulk of the contributors understand what they'll be facing. I think that this certainty is suddenly sinking into their brains. This weekend will be a hectic one for SFX as they ponder the possible fallout. My guess is that Monday morning sanity will prevail. And all will be right with the world.
630
« on: July 29, 2008, 10:51 »
Truth be known, theres not a thing any of you can say or do to stop this train wreck happening. The writing woz on the wall ages a ago and all the hollerin an protesting is not going to make a dizzy of a difference. 10mp cams are so cheep now theres a queue behind y'all waiting to submit and they don't even care if they get paid or not. They just get a buzz from the whole community thing. Watch!
Bettyboop, and I thought I was pessimistic! Lots of folks here will avoid this train wreck by jumping off the train. At least the StockXpert one. I have long maintained that we are moving into a commodity business with so much volume from so many wanna-bes. I'm also thinking that knowing what to shoot and maintaining quality will still succeed over the multitudes you talk about with the cheap cams. Some have commented that the average payment per image is going up on some sites so not all the clouds have a crap lining. Long term, I hope that is true. In most businesses quality rises to the top and the dregs get drained away into the sewer. I see no difference in microstock.
631
« on: July 29, 2008, 09:23 »
When I had the Canon 1ds I used a small brush from Visible Dust. You "charge" it by blowing the bristles with a can of compressed air. Then simply brush lightly on the sensor and the dust is attracted to the bristles by static charge. It worked very well.
Or you can buy the Canon 1Ds Mark III with the auto dust control system. That REALLY works well.
632
« on: July 28, 2008, 15:38 »
I'm the biggest supporter of non-exclusive status you could find. The latest SFX plans serve as just another example of not restricting yourself to any one site. We can always pick and choose and let the unchosen go.
And I hate the idea of getting just pennies for unlimited usages as discussed in this thread.
On the other hand... I have no idea if this management plan will succeed in terms of our increased commissions. Another one of those "time will tell" moments. Somewhat like a completely new micro site coming up. So I'm not about to get into a snit like some until results show or don't show results. It might take a few months to see how it all plays out. In the meantime I'll keep complaining about Snap, Yay, and anywhere else where the meaningful results are way overdue.
StockXpert will still be in my site lineup but I probably won't be uploading anything new there because I'm still opted out of the subs there -- at least for a while longer until they flip that switch.
633
« on: July 27, 2008, 17:56 »
CAUTION, PESSIMISM AHEAD:
We ain't seen nothing yet.
I still believe that we are moving into a largely commodity business and the sites are just reacting to the price competition. I see rates going even lower what with ever-morphing sub programs. Look for more free introductory offers that will further reduce commissions.
If your IS portfolio hasn't yet been affected by subs hang onto your hats. IS is not about to be undercut. With the seemingly unending flood of images, contributors, and new sites coming on-line economics will dictate lower prices.
If new images were oil, gasoline would be down to a buck a gallon in no time.
634
« on: July 25, 2008, 16:56 »
I love my 1 Ds MKIII. I upgraded from the 1 Ds about 2 months ago. I got about $1300 for it on Ebay.
One thing I didn't know was that you must use CS3 to open those .CR2 files although you can get an upgrade, I believe, for CS2. My good MAC toys are in AZ and no problem with power to work the big file sizes. But in IL all I have is an old Mac G4 laptop that won't swallow CS3 Photoshop, although it will take CS3 Dreamweaver. So while here in IL I have to make due with using one of the memory cards in the Mark III as a L size jpg.
Greatest feature -- or one of the greatest -- is the dust management technology that "shakes" the dust off or some such thing. It is fantastic. I just did a series of shots with huge expanses of light blue sky. Even though I switch lenses a lot I could not find one speck of dust on that image to clone away.
I also second the comments about using the best possible lenses. You will see a vast difference when working with these size files. Batteries are unbelievably better also. Did I mention that having 2 memory cards is a nice feature?
635
« on: July 25, 2008, 10:04 »
One thing you might check is the default settings on your camera. I found that the saturation default on my new Canon Mark III was set to a plus something. I turned it to 0. Then I usually add back a bit saturation if needed in Raw. But even I get the occasional "over filtered BS" even if the image has no added filtering at all.  Maybe it's a catchall rejection for reviewers who just don't like the image.
636
« on: July 24, 2008, 15:07 »
What's the big deal on FTP? My images that are there might as well not be. It has been a complete waste of time so far when compared to any new site, including the late LuckyOliver. So why the big fuss over FTP when it seems to me like marketing would be first?
And, Brian, why wasn't the issue of FTP solved when the site was first planned? It's not like it has been a big secret.
637
« on: July 23, 2008, 21:31 »
Whatever the rejection reason it's usually a waste of time to "fix" it, regardless of the site. Wait a few days and resubmit the same thing and presto, accepted.
I've about had it with some of the rejection reasons as noted by others here. Especially the "poor lighting" and "incorrrect white point". 99% they are wrong. Period. I have to think that it just depends upon how good their monitors are and, mostly, their personal preferences. I've got top equipment top to bottom and know how to use it. And that includes white balance control. I photograph paintings for artists for goodness sake. And you can't fake those white point results.
But that's the nature of this beast we serve. Best to turn the other cheek and gripe about it here to let off steam.
638
« on: July 23, 2008, 12:53 »
Larry,
Well done with backing up. I'm too lazy to burn DVD's. But I do have a 2TB hard drive in my fireproof safe with all files on it that is never more than a month behind. Another 1.5TB hard drive is on my desktop with all files including current files. With the low cost of big HDs it's quite easy to simply drag the files to the backup HD.
639
« on: July 16, 2008, 18:09 »
No way I'll ever, ever, ever be among the first to jump onto a new site. Absolutely not. In any circumstance. Lord strike me dead if I even harbor the thought! I'd sooner dip my stick into a barrel of live scorpions.
You never know, though. I still have a closet full of Nehru jackets.
640
« on: July 14, 2008, 14:01 »
Whiz....what a trend. Looks like next month you'll be paying Istock.
641
« on: July 14, 2008, 13:58 »
Pre-rejection. Hmmm. I like the concept. Sort of like reducing your carbon footprint by buying carbon "credits" from someone else. How about this: I'll sell you a bunch of guaranteed-rejected images that you upload to any site. Rejection problem solved.
642
« on: July 13, 2008, 08:41 »
With traffic down at the bottom with Yay and Snap I don't see much happening at FP for my stuff. No action in 2 1/2 months. Little before that. I don't bother uploading there any more.
643
« on: July 10, 2008, 17:35 »
I'm sure Yay isn't one of those government-financed start ups where the head guys disappear with the cash. But if it is Norway should sell the software to Snap.
644
« on: July 10, 2008, 17:25 »
My overall ranking there is 1615. I have no idea if that's good. But what's bad is the rotten sales there this year for me. And more and more of those sub-standard subscription sales. I'm not sure if I can opt-out of subs there. Might as well, if possible. I opted out at StockEx a few months ago and am pleased with the results.
645
« on: July 10, 2008, 12:55 »
I repeat. Their search function is broken. Terminally so with images uploaded before Version 2. Near as I can tell it works only if you search for 1 key word. In numerous tests of my best images there I can find them only with 1 key word. If I use, say, my best 3 keywords, even though they are all common words, my images are so far down the list to be worthless. They may have solved some of the keyword problems with images uploaded after V2. But unless you re-upload those golden oldies and follow some mystical formula, you don't have a prayer with real-world searches. For me their measly commissions make it just another way to waste time.
646
« on: July 09, 2008, 07:50 »
I just posted these comments on another site:
Looks like a great idea for Getty to pick and choose from over 2 billion images, and get them exclusively with very little investment. A good deal also for Flickr users in that they'll see it as a painless way to make a few bucks. A good deal for image users that already use Getty adding lots more variety. Maybe not such a good idea for micro contributors in that the pool of images goes way up and dilutes sales potential away from micro sites. Probably also a bad deal for micro sites for all the above reasons including the smaller, newer micro sites that are having to fight for contributors.
I wonder also if Flickr will become a new micro site -- inviting us micro contributors aboard. It would be a nice new revenue stream for them. Plus a great new time-waster for micro contributors to upload to a new site (Flickr) with the promise that maybe sometime on the off-chance that an image of theirs will be chosen from the 2 billion by a Getty reviewer.
A great way for Getty to develop a "farm team" of contributors. Thousands of new shooters with a desire to be seen. Fertile fields for them. Pretty * smart.
Love to hear other opinions on this development.
647
« on: July 08, 2008, 19:48 »
I print for artists who work in all kinds of sizes. Some artists don't care what the final size is as long as the paper size fits into a standard size plastic envelope, ready to sell. Others want the print image itself to be a standard size so they can buy cheaper stock frames. For prints on canvas we need to make the image area in even inch increments so that they can stretch the print onto standard size wood stretcher bars.
648
« on: July 08, 2008, 14:23 »
He didn't say much about why someone should join up. He mentioned price points between 1 dollar and 50 dollars. He said vague comments about quality. No compelling reasons. No enthusiasm. Had he said, "I'm the guy who, instead of getting fired, got stuck in charge of this mess" I'd say his presentation and the production value matched.
649
« on: July 07, 2008, 17:56 »
Snap has been a major disappointment for me. Very slow sales, very few views. Just a few sales over the last few months. All subs. No other sales. Have no idea why. They've got all my best images that are selling well elsewhere. They have made it onto my do-not-upload list. I may work for peanuts but I don't work for free.
650
« on: July 07, 2008, 11:55 »
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
