Talk:List of stock photography archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Adverts

hello - does anyone think some of the description entrys sound like adverts? terms like "...original images of the highest quality..." (Axiom); "Our uniquely India Collection..."(PhotosIndia - I've deleted this term); ... maybe the descriptions need to be standardised to basic/common components - they seem a bit like advertising slogans to me ... ?Boomshanka 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Microstock

Hi, shouldn't Istockphoto be changed or also be included in the major section (over 100,000+) Acrilico 08:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We should keep the microstocks seperate for clarity. But we need a definition for microstock. Images under 10$? --cda 15:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. When I first visited this page I didn't understand what microstock meant, and I was wondering, why is Istockphoto in this section? But only after reading its description I understood what it was all about. I mean, I agree to change it to make it more clear so people won't get confused. Acrilico 16:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving to another category

Imagevortex has prices over $30. StockToGo also has prices over $10, and TotallyPhotos also. Where to put them? Acrilico 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tables

I'm trying to fix the table which is broken at fstop images. but I am having trouble viewing my changes . maybe it is a problem with my firefox. so I decided to stop before making things worse. Needs to be fixed before anything else is added.--cda 12:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, so I fixed the table this morning. please don't change the tables unless you know what you are doing. put the info here in the talk pages if you have to and someone who knows what they are doing will add it to the tables. otherwise your work is going to get reverted. Use a sandbox to experiment.--cda 15:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PIC

Hi, was editing the pages (but forgot to sign in). The thing is, PIC is listed in at least three of the categories, seems someone added it and put it at the top.

Any advice to where to leave it? Acrilico 07:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Left PIC in minor agencies, 'cause it isn't entirely a RF site (as microstocks are) Acrilico 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for table change

Hi, I'd like to have the info more clear, the way it is now, there's only one column for: Images, photographer, commision, also if it has RF, RM or both, and also the price. That's a lot of text in one space, and very confusing.

So, I'd like to add two columns, one for RF and one for RM, it would have in them:

- If there's a price, put the price in there. - If there's no info about the price, there would only be a "yes" in that space.

That way, one can easily know which sites are RF, which ones offer RM and which ones offer both.

Here's an example:

List
Site Description Com. Edu. RF RM
1 Site 1 Desc. 1 Yes Yes $20-80 $500+
2 Site 2 Desc. 2 Yes Yes $20-80 $500+
3 Site 3 Desc. 3 Yes Yes $20-80 Yes
4 Site 4 Desc. 4 Yes Yes - Yes


Acrilico 23:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Sounds good. And is there a better place or way to have first the official website then a link to their wikipedia article, if it exists? Because right now it is jumbled and inconsistent. One good thing is the entries have stabalized. I think we have all the major players listed now and the whole thing is going to have to be edited less often than in the past. I for one, think this is a very useful page. Can't find this info anywhere else (all together) on the web that I know of. Thanks to everyone who contributes. --cda 00:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


    • Hi, just formated the Free section, am also changing format to the Microstock section, tell me if you like it, and any suggestions welcome. Acrilico 03:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal for further table change

    • Finally changed the layout of almost the whole page, and saw some things that could be improved, for example there could be only one column for Commercial / Educational / Personal, like this:
Site Description Commercial / Educational / Personal RF RM
1 Site 1 Desc. 1 C E P $20-80 $500+
2 Site 2 Desc. 2 C E $20-80 $500+
3 Site 3 Desc. 3 C E $20-80 Yes
4 Site 4 Desc. 4 E P - Yes

I thought that to save some space and make it more thight. What does everyone think? The idea looks a "little" bit ugly right now, will keep thinking about the format. bye Acrilico 03:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Great work Acrilico. I really appreciate all the work you are doing. Yes, the Commercial / Educational / Personal all in one column is much better. One thing. I am thinking about adding a table - websites where photographers can sell their own work. Photoshelter, Stockpipeline, Digital Railroad come to mind. And I would like to start a list of software for photographers to make their own e-commerce websites. But that might be another page. And thanks to everyone for tolerating the free image table. I'm glad I don't have to argue for it because I think it belongs here. I think it is useful to know what is being "given away". Makes the page comprehensive.--cda 04:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


    • Hi, thanks, you too have done lots :). I've just changed the layout of the Major Stock Photo section to the one mentioned above, tell me what you think, and any suggestions are welcome. Oh, about the "Free photo archives" section, don't you think CDA if it'd be better to title it "Free stock photo archives"? To differentiate for example from public domain photo. --- Oh, I just thought about adding a link to the wikipedia article about public domain photos, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_image_resources. --- Also, add the table you mentioned about the photographers. --- One last comment: I'm still strugling about how to put links and external links, what do you think about the links layout in the Free photo section? Do you think that works? bye. Acrilico 09:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Free stock photo archives" excellent idea. done.
  • Public_domain_image_resources done.
  • links and external links - the way you have it is a big improvement. I meant to look around and see how it is done on other tables. but I don't get around much.
  • and - I'm also working on a table of what agencies require for submissions: pixels, megabytes, sharpening?, nudity allowed?, artistic affects allowed?, ftp upload available? anyone think of other questions for that table please add them to this talk page. I think it has to be its own table. I think it would be too bulky to add to the above tables. or would it? maybe it needs its own page also.--cda 03:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Changed the Minor stock layout to make it similar to the table of Major stocks.

Hi CDA, excellent work, excellent. About the submission table, I think it's better as the way you put it, because in existent tables, if there ain't many sites who accept photos, I think that the table should be separated, 'cause it would be just wasted space.

Hey, what about if this text is added to each table (above or below): "Sites with an asterisk accept photos submitted."

like this:

Site Description Commercial / Educational / Personal RF RM
1* Site 1 Desc. 1 C E P $20-80 $500+
2 Site 2 Desc. 2 C E $20-80 $500+
3* Site 3 Desc. 3 C E $20-80 Yes
4 Site 4 Desc. 4 E P - Yes

"Sites with an asterisk accept photos submitted. See below or click here"

Acrilico 21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

hi cda, just wanted to say that: you rule!

that's all I can say, to see this great effort that gets reflected into this great work of yours.

c ya!

Thanks, you made me smile. --cda 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free Stock Photos Archives

Hi guys,

I have compiled a list of free stock photo archives here and I thought you might find it useful. I am a bit reluctant to modify the article myself since I am not a contributor or a registered user, that's why I am posting it here.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_stock_photography_archives_f285.html"