|
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 - Squat
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
1
« on: August 07, 2009, 14:49 »
Good post Keith.
The article reminds me once again that the business is going to blazes. It's not the first time people like named in the article are given a rotten deal. Too many to mention. Suffice to say, that going back to the 80s when I was a greenhorn photojournalist graduate straight out of college, I was , as hopeless a photographer as I was, still making a lot more money stringing for news work,etc.. The older pros making far more money than me, naturally.
Point being, today, none of us are even getting close to what we make , with our 20 odd years experience, plus our techniques well -honed.
Why? all the business has gone to get images for nothing or almost next to nothing.
I get editors telling me that I could contribute for free if I wanted the photo credit and publicity. Lol, why would I need to do that? If I were that greenhorn kid straight out photo college, maybe. But even then, at that time, I never did an assignment for free. Today, well, it's another story.
Any tom, dick and mary... or pierre, jacques and henri, as we call it here,
will quickly replace you . Not because their images are better, but because
they will do the job for free.
We really cannot turn back time. We cannot even try to reset the mechanism.
I think it's all broken. Unless a great upheaval happens, to rebalance the equilibrium of photographers worth, I doubt anything will happen except that the earnings are going to be far less than it was 20 years ago.
Simply because anyone can spot a DSLR to do the job . Shoot a better images, better standard? What standard, fgs! Most of the editors haven't the faintest idea what the standard is , either.
Submit and shut up. I guess that would be the only thing left.
Unless someone else has a better idea?
I am all ears too...
2
« on: August 07, 2009, 14:29 »
yes, some good ideas of responses here .
Hello Nebitski,
you can try to improve your composition for these hearing aids.
Others have already pointed out most of the vital points.
I didn't know for sure what they were, but thx to Moonb007 who made it clear to me they are off hearing aids.
This is just it. Your image placement must be "tweaked" (as Moonb007 says)
so that someone like myself , silly as I am, don't have to ask, "what is it?".
Isolation is important to get clean white and clean shadows and intact highlights.
If you want to make it exciting and not do it like isolated image, maybe you can put some related objects in the back to indicate "hearing" , "listening"...you know, stereo speakers? or something like that. this can be with a shallow d o f , with the foreground of the aids in well-focused
and well-lit. your background of the related objects can be lit a little lower if you wish, so long as the shadows are clean and not a distraction.
Sum it up,
if it's isolated, make sure it is clean and clean outlines, no soft edges .
with white white background.
if not, then go for the candid look, with still the foreground nice and neatly arranged and well lit and sharp in detail, with the background a bit less focused and more subdued.
3
« on: August 05, 2009, 12:59 »
Sorry, you missed my point. I will try once more because I have some time to waste with you today.
It isn't the "being offensive" I objected to in Lisa's post, or yours either. Offensive is a relative term anyway.
What I object to, is people pretending to be an authority on a subject they know nothing about. That goes for everyone and really has nothing to do with gender at all.
I am not offended by your tone. I can take it or I wouldn't be here. Same goes for Lisa4s, Stacey (who you keep alluding to), or anyone else on this forum. While your attempts at chivalry are rather quaint, these women aren't/didn't ask for your help in defending them.
Gonna have to sign off now. Got a life to live, and friends and family to spend it with. Besides, I have a feeling you aren't going to understand this post any more than you have any others.
Give my regards to that next windmill you tilt at, would you Don Quixote? 
ETA: And here comes puravida moving up on the outside. Do I see 50%eggs joining in too? C'mon, it's a party!! Thanks again for the diversion 
Sure what ., we are the ones who don't have a life. It's ironic. Everytime someone disagrees with you, and get their rearend lubed, they all come up with the ubitquitous empirical response, "get a life". Come on, what, be a little more creative with your remarks. After all, you are the one who is the expert and the one with the life...
4
« on: August 04, 2009, 22:16 »
Ok kids, everyone to bed. No radios, no comic books. Lights out!
ha!ha!... Good one , Grandpa Sean ! Nothing like a good bar brawl every once in a while to clear the anal passages. Lights out! No radios, no comic books. You heard Grandpa Sean ! 
5
« on: August 04, 2009, 19:42 »
This is a bad idea (in my opinion), but I wish John all the success if he thinks it is the right way to go.
John's a daydreamer, like John Lennon. How can he expects to be a giant killer , lol. But then again, if I remember my giant killer story, David used a slingshot to kill Goliath. Here John Griffin, pick a pebble
6
« on: August 04, 2009, 15:43 »
whatver John's ulterior motive is, if it is to dig at those Big 6 who have been giving us their incredible curve balls, I wholeheartedly say, "Go for it Cutcaster!
If you truly wish contributors get better commissions, then, I hope you succeed . out of getting the buyers to think they should be paying as much on good images as they themselves expect their work to be highly valued".
i , for one, cannot believe that ALL BUYERS are scavengers, and will only pay us peanuts. 
it's the blooming greed of the Big 6 of micro stock that have made the buyers think like scavengers, and that we, the contributors do not deserve to be paid anything more than a few pennies for our work.
I think you give the buyers more credit than they deserve. Buyers are no different from children. They will take whatever daddy and mommy allow them . In fact, some, if not many, of these buyers were living on daddy's credit card through Art School, and are used to getting everything for nothing. They don't know what value is. If the sites can sell for more, don't you think they would?
7
« on: August 04, 2009, 14:43 »
Sean's right. Knowing John, he's probably playing . As in "better than cheddar". Of which there is also a cheese called Vetta, if I am not mistaken. Italian too. Correct me if I am mistaken. It's funny , though ! We need funny nowadays , the way things have been going lately with all the Big 6 stealthily expanding into the "lubrication" enterprise ( m@m, so funny)
8
« on: August 02, 2009, 15:57 »
cheers David. and congrats for your dl #2 success. tan (btw, the CEO of 3D is also matt ... a fine name !)
9
« on: August 02, 2009, 15:43 »
Although I 've just joined IS, but I voted for them.
I always thought there site is well designed. Very difficult to succeed as a new contributor (upload limit, difficult review,etc)...
but objectively, still I like the whole design elements.
10
« on: August 02, 2009, 15:37 »
David (Now I might rush to do the IRS W-8 form)
btw David, where do that? US and Canada (we have a treaty vice versa), do we still have to do the IRS thing? On which page is that?
11
« on: August 02, 2009, 15:33 »
I think Veer MP's watermark is pretty good:
*not my file, in case you're wondering
Yes, totally. It's good to see two "new" sites (new , to me and many of us here , that is) , both with excellent watermarks. Shows that some sites DO care about protecting contributors images. Let's hope the sales is just as good
12
« on: July 31, 2009, 07:59 »
I think both bumper stickers apply...hahahaha
or maybe this one D ... rive S ...lowly??? L...OL R..OFL
14
« on: July 30, 2009, 16:35 »
That's awesome, That's good commission for the size. A few cents less for what we get with certain Big 6 on an Extended License for a much much larger size image . Or like how many subs  20 ?? congrats David. I also like the watermark.
15
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:09 »
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPACTION. AND MAY YOUR WISHES ALL COME TRUE ...
16
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:01 »
Felicitacion Talanis,
Are we live already on Veer? I am not even sure if my SV transferred and the new approved at VM are open for sale at all. Where do you see if you are getting any sales? Or do we get an email from them telling .
17
« on: July 29, 2009, 17:30 »
PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC.
You can start a new topic on eliminating the middle man, if you wish.
But this topic is mine. Thx.
18
« on: July 29, 2009, 16:59 »
$13.05 in the past 6 months with 200 uplds, hey! by the time I'm 105 years old maybe I'll have enough for a tank of gas...who said they're WORTHLES?!!! 
Maybe if you can locate a local dealer of petrol in your part of the woods, you could convince them to start a SUB program for cheap petrol Or maybe all the sites of microstock could join forces get into the petrol business, to buy over one of these petrol companies, drive the prices of petrol down with subscription ? Won't we'll all be happy drivers
19
« on: July 29, 2009, 16:55 »
This is interesting, with your tally so far at ---
#1 tie : Cutcaster 3 Zymmetrical 3
#2 tie : Veer 2 Yaymicro 2
#3 tie : BigStock 1 Photoshelter (demise) 1 Mostphoto 1 (own site ) 1.
It's pretty good for both John (CC) and Keith (Z). Which isn't too surprising, as these two people have been the most pro-active here.
20
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:52 »
1- Zymm because they give 70% to contributors
2- Dreamstime (although they are already there) because I always liked them
3- Veer Marketplace ( I have high hopes)
4- StockXpert if they could get independent once again (to piss off Getty)
5- Yay Micro (fast upload and nice people)
2 and 4 have been disqualified. You cannot chose any existing site in the Big 5
21
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:41 »
I think my first wish would be for a big bottle of whatever you're drinking.
ROFL gostwyck. No bottle, not even a small bottle. I haven't been getting anything other than subs for dls , so all I could afford is steal some glue from the neighbourhood junkie . (good one ,gostwyck !!! )
22
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:31 »
If you could set up a Poll we could have a vote.
No, that would be too long a list. It 's better we just mentioned our wish list of 6 sites. I don't want to single out any "favourites". That would not be accurate.
23
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:21 »
Here's something of a spit in the ocean ; okay okay, I know it's utterly ridiculous a thought. Still, I am a big Disney fan, and believe in Peter Pan, although I did not work with Disney like sjlocke. But seriously, ... let's say you have 5 wishes from the magic genie.. that say you can replace the Big 6 with the rest of the list, including newbies. Which site would you like to see make the Big 6. In your order of merit.. 1,2,3,4,5,and 6. You can give your reasons if you like. What's the worse that can happen? Maybe your vote will inspire the CEOs of the list to try make it happen for us. And we'll all live happily ever after... instead of hitting the bottle
24
« on: July 29, 2009, 13:10 »
When we met with StockXpert and Jupiter folks in the conference last year they said that majority of new users were coming from sxc.hu
Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.
What will happen with StockXpert remains unclear... In any case I am quite sure there will be no rush and sudden moves - if they will phase it out they will do it gradually. Or perhaps they will leave it for non-exclusives and make istock exclusive-only site? (just an idea)
Not sure what StockXpert and Jupiter folks said, or that it makes any difference. But we all know what Getty said. They made it very clear that they invited StockXpert contributors to join IStock. I think that is very clear what Getty prefers us to do.
25
« on: July 29, 2009, 11:32 »
Concept keywording, ah yes.!
Incidentally, I am contemplating on that right at this moment. I am aware of getting some keywords pointed out as irrelevant but if I leave it out, I may cut myself off from some potential uploads.
So what do I do? Do I use those concept keywords or play safe, and hope the reviewer I get find the keywords relevant.
With Veer, it's a soft reject and it's convenient to resubmit. With others, it counts as a total rejection, and hurt my approval percentage. And of course, having to wait yet another xxx hours for the review again.
A dilemma, isn't it?
In all, I think Veer has pretty much the ideal solution to keyword spamming, for now. It's encouraging me to keep uploading there. What do you think?
PD:
yes, Alamy is something else. I like Alamy, but it's difficult to like when you don't see any sales. Having to upsize is a big pain. You need some incentive if you truly want to keep at it for Alamy.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
