Professional Photographers - Sell your Photos Online , Online Proofing, Watermarking, Image Protection, and more.

[Lionel]

On 6 Jul 2003 11:40:28 -0700, in
<9d2caaf1.0307061040.a857786@posting.google.com> ,
[email]bluearchtop@my-deja.com[/email] (Ted Smith) said:

>ImageDisplayWorks' (IDW) "Eye Select" is an end-to-end Internet
>software application that enables professional photographers to sell
>their photographs and manage their events online. Pricing starts at
>just $49.00/month (hosting included).

Too expensive.
I'd actually be interested in a service like this if it was at a
reasonable price. I'd be willing to pay a *small* (ie; similar to what
most providers charge for hosting <100MB) hosting charge, with a
commission on sales.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

[zeitgeist]

>
> Too expensive.
> I'd actually be interested in a service like this if it was at a
> reasonable price. I'd be willing to pay a *small* (ie; similar to what
> most providers charge for hosting <100MB) hosting charge, with a
> commission on sales.
>
> --

yeah, but I refuse to do business with spammers, period.

[Lionel]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 07:05:39 GMT, in <7Z8Oa.23779$Ix2.11242@rwcrnsc54>,
"zeitgeist" <blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> said:

>> Too expensive.
>> I'd actually be interested in a service like this if it was at a
>> reasonable price. I'd be willing to pay a *small* (ie; similar to what
>> most providers charge for hosting <100MB) hosting charge, with a
>> commission on sales.

>
>yeah, but I refuse to do business with spammers, period.

That too. ;)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

[Graphic]

Greedy, Greedy internet spammers-----

---they should be satisfied with a decent profit for a decent professional
print PLUS a reasonable commission (5% ??? credit card companies only get
about 3% as merchant fees) for handling the money collections from the end
client of the event photographer.....Then I'd be interested as well....but
all of the labs that I've seen offering this service want large monthly fees
or gaurantees. But who gaurantees the photographers their cash flow????


"Lionel" <nop@alt.net> wrote in message news:beaoif$uf4$1@pita.alt.net...

> On 6 Jul 2003 11:40:28 -0700, in
> <9d2caaf1.0307061040.a857786@posting.google.com> ,
> [email]bluearchtop@my-deja.com[/email] (Ted Smith) said:
>

> >ImageDisplayWorks' (IDW) "Eye Select" is an end-to-end Internet
> >software application that enables professional photographers to sell
> >their photographs and manage their events online. Pricing starts at
> >just $49.00/month (hosting included).

>
> Too expensive.
> I'd actually be interested in a service like this if it was at a
> reasonable price. I'd be willing to pay a *small* (ie; similar to what
> most providers charge for hosting <100MB) hosting charge, with a
> commission on sales.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

[Brad]

In article <bep62c$e31$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, graphic99
@mindspring.com said...

> Greedy, Greedy internet spammers-----
>
> ---they should be satisfied with a decent profit for a decent professional
> print PLUS a reasonable commission (5% ??? credit card companies only get
> about 3% as merchant fees) for handling the money collections from the end
> client of the event photographer.....Then I'd be interested as well....but
> all of the labs that I've seen offering this service want large monthly fees
> or gaurantees. But who gaurantees the photographers their cash flow????

At dotPhoto we allow photographers to charge their own prices. We take
the CC fee (3%) plus our price for the print and 15% of the difference
between our price and the custom price. You can sell one print per month
or 10 thousand and there are no extra fees at this time.

The only other option I've seen for photographers is to run their own
sites and take orders and submit them by hand to an online site (or local
lab), but that takes considerable time and expertise and additional money.

[VH-MR2]

"Graphic" <graphic99@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bep62c$e31$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...

> Greedy, Greedy internet spammers-----
>
> ---they should be satisfied with a decent profit for a decent professional
> print PLUS a reasonable commission (5% ??? credit card companies only get
> about 3% as merchant fees) for handling the money collections from the end
> client of the event photographer.....Then I'd be interested as well....but
> all of the labs that I've seen offering this service want large monthly

fees

> or gaurantees. But who gaurantees the photographers their cash flow????

Running an internet site is an expensive business and they're not forcing
you to do anything.

[VH-MR2]

Hi Paul

"Paul Butzi" <usenetp@butzi.net> wrote in message
news:7dj0hv81fa5fr7natovvqrog56u8tpq4bv@4ax.com...

> [url]http://www.butzi.net[/url]

I notice you have advertised your COMMERCIAL website as well .. isn't that a
tad like the pot calling the kettle black?

As for the post .. I see no problem with posting a business into a
newsgroup, they are not "non commercial". I feel the problem exists when
people use the wrong newsgroup or insist on posting continually ... this
is my opinion, it differs from yours and i'm sure everyone has their own.

[Paul Butzi]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:47:09 +1000, "VH-MR2"
<sickoyouNOTREQUIRED@ZZZZZwarbirdz.net> wrote:

>Hi Paul
>
>"Paul Butzi" <usenetp@butzi.net> wrote in message
>news:7dj0hv81fa5fr7natovvqrog56u8tpq4bv@4ax.com.. .
>

>> [url]http://www.butzi.net[/url]

>
>I notice you have advertised your COMMERCIAL website as well .. isn't that a
>tad like the pot calling the kettle black?

If you look around, you'll notice that the one acceptable way to
mention a commercial enterprise with which you're associated is to put
the URL or name of the business/contact info for the business in your
..sig. And that's been the case since 1981 or something like that, way
back when usenet posts were passed from host to host using UUCP.

If I posted in the rec.photo groups urging people to buy off my
website (something I haven't done and don't plan to do) I would be
pretty clearly over the line, and I would hope that someone would tell
me to stop.

I'll make a deal with you. I suggest that Richard Knoppow is the
person who posts on rec.photo who is most held in extremely high
regard. If you want me to delete the URL for my web site from my
..sig, I'll be happy to do it if you can get Richard to ask me to do
it.

>As for the post .. I see no problem with posting a business into a
>newsgroup, they are not "non commercial". I feel the problem exists when
>people use the wrong newsgroup or insist on posting continually ... this
>is my opinion, it differs from yours and i'm sure everyone has their own.

You may see no problem with it, and you may feel that the rec.photo
groups are not "non-commercial" but you are just as wrong about this
as you are about my .sig mentioning my website. You may find reading
the charter for the rec.photo newsgroups helpful in straightening out
your confusion.

-Paul


--
[url]http://www.butzi.net[/url]

[VH-MR2]

"Paul Butzi" <usenetp@butzi.net> wrote in message
news:c751hvgvm9i4o7u4h43b1amber06qa68pb@4ax.com...

>
> If you look around, you'll notice that the one acceptable way to
> mention a commercial enterprise with which you're associated is to put
> the URL or name of the business/contact info for the business in your
> .sig. And that's been the case since 1981 or something like that, way
> back when usenet posts were passed from host to host using UUCP.

With all due respect Paul .. that is your opinion. I beg to differ on your
other statements .. businesses have been advertising in newsgroups since
they opened and sure, it can be annoying but at least that bloke wasn't
trying to increase the size of your penis or invite you to watch cumly girls
....

> If I posted in the rec.photo groups urging people to buy off my
> website (something I haven't done and don't plan to do) I would be
> pretty clearly over the line, and I would hope that someone would tell
> me to stop.

I don't think it's over the line at all although I suspect no one would buy.
But then, the nature of his business is one that photographers are likely to
choose to use if they are happy to pay the monthly fee. I feel it's
entirely relevant to the newsgroups mentioned above. Wannabe professionals
looking for someone to host their pictures. Rather than bitching about him
doing something you don't like why not just block sender?

No use getting grey hairs over something you can't change.

> I'll make a deal with you. I suggest that Richard Knoppow is the
> person who posts on rec.photo who is most held in extremely high
> regard. If you want me to delete the URL for my web site from my
> .sig, I'll be happy to do it if you can get Richard to ask me to do
> it.

I don't want you to delete your URL. I was merely pointing out what
appears, to me, to be a small hypocrisy.

> You may see no problem with it, and you may feel that the rec.photo
> groups are not "non-commercial" but you are just as wrong about this
> as you are about my .sig mentioning my website. You may find reading
> the charter for the rec.photo newsgroups helpful in straightening out
> your confusion.

Actually, rather than me doing all that, might I suggest a more simple
solution? A little tolerance on your part?

[Brad]

In article <7dj0hv81fa5fr7natovvqrog56u8tpq4bv@4ax.com>, [email]usenetp@butzi.net[/email]
said...

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:14:38 -0400, Brad <bmurray@dotphoto.com> wrote:
>

> >In article <bep62c$e31$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, graphic99
> >@mindspring.com said...

> >> Greedy, Greedy internet spammers-----
> >>
> >> ---they should be satisfied with a decent profit for a decent professional
> >> print PLUS a reasonable commission (5% ??? credit card companies only get
> >> about 3% as merchant fees) for handling the money collections from the end
> >> client of the event photographer.....Then I'd be interested as well....but
> >> all of the labs that I've seen offering this service want large monthly fees
> >> or gaurantees. But who gaurantees the photographers their cash flow????

> >
> >At dotPhoto we allow photographers to charge their own prices. We take
> >the CC fee (3%) plus our price for the print and 15% of the difference
> >between our price and the custom price. You can sell one print per month
> >or 10 thousand and there are no extra fees at this time.
> >
> >The only other option I've seen for photographers is to run their own
> >sites and take orders and submit them by hand to an online site (or local
> >lab), but that takes considerable time and expertise and additional money.

>
> Please don't use the non-commercial newsgroups to promote your
> business.
>
> All you will do is annoy part of your potential market and provide a
> venue for people to make nasty comments about your business model,
> which as far as I can tell are mostly warranted.
>
> Cut your losses now and stop.

He was making a statement about the services available and there are
options that he was obviously unaware of. I could have easily posted as
an anonymous user and pretended to be a third party (as people often do
when recommending companies), but I didn't because I didn't want to
mislead anybody.

[Nick Zentena]

In rec.photo.darkroom Brad <bmurray@dotphoto.com> wrote:

> He was making a statement about the services available and there are
> options that he was obviously unaware of. I could have easily posted as
> an anonymous user and pretended to be a third party (as people often do
> when recommending companies), but I didn't because I didn't want to
> mislead anybody.

No a spammer was polluting the water. Isn't spam a crime in the US now?

Nick

[Mxsmanic]

Nick Zentena writes:

> No a spammer was polluting the water. Isn't spam
> a crime in the US now?

Not yet, and in any case, posting to a newsgroup is not spamming.

If you have a problem with a post, just don't read it. Do not expect
the world to censor itself to match your criteria of acceptability.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Nick Zentena]

In rec.photo.darkroom Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Zentena writes:
>

>> No a spammer was polluting the water. Isn't spam
>> a crime in the US now?

>
> Not yet, and in any case, posting to a newsgroup is not spamming.

I'm guessing you've never heard of the green card spam?

>
> If you have a problem with a post, just don't read it. Do not expect
> the world to censor itself to match your criteria of acceptability.

Try again.

Nick

[John]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:43:30 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Nick Zentena writes:
>

>> No a spammer was polluting the water. Isn't spam
>> a crime in the US now?

>
>Not yet, and in any case, posting to a newsgroup is not spamming.
>
>If you have a problem with a post, just don't read it. Do not expect
>the world to censor itself to match your criteria of acceptability.

I do expect it to follow the spirit of the charters though.

Regards,

John - Photographer & Webmaster - [url]http://www.darkroompro.com[/url]
A summation of American society after 9/11:
Never have so many known so much and yet done so little.

[VH-MR2]

"Nick Zentena" <zentena@kriek.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:bkhreb.hk8.ln@barley...

> In rec.photo.darkroom Brad <bmurray@dotphoto.com> wrote:
>
> No a spammer was polluting the water. Isn't spam a crime in the US now?
>
> Nick

It may be .. but he wasn't spamming.

[VH-MR2]

You realise that eventually it will be you who is censored as everyone
silently killfiles you to get past your whining ...


"Nick Zentena" <zentena@kriek.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:v7preb.cv8.ln@barley...

> In rec.photo.darkroom Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Nick Zentena writes:
> >

> >> No a spammer was polluting the water. Isn't spam
> >> a crime in the US now?

> >
> > Not yet, and in any case, posting to a newsgroup is not spamming.

>
> I'm guessing you've never heard of the green card spam?
>

> >
> > If you have a problem with a post, just don't read it. Do not expect
> > the world to censor itself to match your criteria of acceptability.

>
>
> Try again.
>
> Nick

[VH-MR2]

Ah I see ...

So it's not ok if OTHERS talk about their business .. but ok if YOU do so.

I am actually aware of how the net works, I am merely pointing out the
hypocritical intolerance of some. I think that if it's OK for you to
advertise your business then others can do the same. I do. But I attempt
to ensure that I keep it in the newsgroups that are relevant and minimise
the amount of times I do so. Businesses that host images for photographers
(I have one of those) benefit both the webmaster AND the photographer,
particularly the semi-professional photographers or those who wish to be
professional that frequent these newsgroups. On a personal note, I don't
cross post into a number of newsgroups as the original poster did and would
join in those who are disappointed at that behaviour.

As you are most likely aware, those who buy images very rarely go and check
out everyones individual websites, and the sale of images from there are
limited. Stock photo agencies are a way for people to have their name out
there, their images available and hopefully get some business.

Whether you like the particular agency or not, and whether you are prepared
to pay a monthly fee or not are individual choices that people should make
for themselves rather than a decision that should be made by you.

My 2c worth anyway.




"John" <john@darkroompro.com> wrote in message
news:h4v2hvs9qnt9mk6gh4jldgd029hb4cfimf@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:47:09 +1000, "VH-MR2"
> <sickoyouNOTREQUIRED@ZZZZZwarbirdz.net> wrote:
>

> >Hi Paul
> >
> >"Paul Butzi" <usenetp@butzi.net> wrote in message
> >news:7dj0hv81fa5fr7natovvqrog56u8tpq4bv@4ax.com.. .
> >

> >> [url]http://www.butzi.net[/url]

> >
> >I notice you have advertised your COMMERCIAL website as well .. isn't

that a

> >tad like the pot calling the kettle black?

>
> Ummmm, no. 4X72 sigs are allowed as long as the post is on topic for the
> group to which it is posted.
>
> Regards
>
> John S. Douglas, Photographer
> [url]http://www.darkroompro.com[/url]

[Mxsmanic]

Nick Zentena writes:

> I'm guessing you've never heard of the green card spam?

I'm guessing that you don't want to hear or read anything that
displeases you.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

John writes:

> I do expect it to follow the spirit of the charters though.

Nobody reads charters. The only guideline to the content of a newsgroup
is its name.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

[Mxsmanic]

VH-MR2 writes:

> Running an internet site is an expensive business ...

That depends on the site.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.