pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is DT alive ?  (Read 18197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2012, 14:48 »
0
Holy crap Elena, 6/70 that's not even 10%!  I would suspect these same files coming from you would be well over 90% or maybe close to 100% at the other agencies. 

Scratching my head....

Me too... and yes those files are accepted everywhere else and selling well. The irony is what DT picks out of a batch to accept are often images with least sales potential.


« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2012, 19:58 »
0
Holy crap Elena, 6/70 that's not even 10%!  I would suspect these same files coming from you would be well over 90% or maybe close to 100% at the other agencies. 

Scratching my head....

Me too... and yes those files are accepted everywhere else and selling well. The irony is what DT picks out of a batch to accept are often images with least sales potential.

I will never understand it.. as a low earner I am for a few time picking the best of that batch and submit that one first or I will have the less potential online.. just great :D

rinderart

« Reply #77 on: January 28, 2012, 02:07 »
0
I for one after 6 years am getting tired of DT and there silly policies. Image Looks to much like this or that. Judge the  individual Image already!!!!!!  Gee, My Image was flagged???? please. But, it's still well worth it to upload to, Just frustrating and I agree they and others should remove old stuff BUT.... as we know SS the last few months are selling primarily Old Images, Some I don't even remember submitting and if SS did that , a lot of folks would be losing a lot of money now. Maybe if they tweaked the search?? I dunno.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 12:00 by rinderart »

lagereek

« Reply #78 on: January 28, 2012, 02:39 »
0
I personally welcome that reviewing is getting tougher. One of the reasons why the Micro is in a bit of a mess, is the fact that just about "anybody"  can get in. Shouldnt be like that at all.
Too similar or too much, comments,  well, it just shows, the reviewers are doing their job, really.  Might feel a bit tough but in the loing run it will work for our benefit. :)

Be honest, whats the point of doing like IS,  accepting every bit of generic rubbish followed by spamming, broken searches, glitches and bugs all over the place.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2012, 02:42 by lagereek »

wut

« Reply #79 on: January 28, 2012, 06:20 »
0
I personally welcome that reviewing is getting tougher. One of the reasons why the Micro is in a bit of a mess, is the fact that just about "anybody"  can get in. Shouldnt be like that at all.

Indeed, but with the rising level of quality, prices (and our earnings) should follow as well. Otherwise it makes no sense, it's like offering a Ferrari for the price of a Corvette

« Reply #80 on: January 28, 2012, 10:33 »
0
The Tata Nano is an inexpensive, rear-engined, four-passenger city car built by Tata Motors and is aimed primarily at the Indian domestic market. Some say it is the cheapest car in the world. The jury is out on whether it is successful or not. Ferraris and Corvettes have been around for a long time but are bought by too few "everyday" people.

The quality may be rising but the drek is still there. I wish more agencies would get rid of old non-sellers. Right now DT allows non-sellers to be sent to a queue where they can be re-keyworded. Adding different words will not resurrect these images, they are just plain bad. Why the emphasis on how many images any micro agency has? There is always a race at DT to the next million. How about less but more quality (i.e. saleable) images? Yes, it might be hard to decide what is "bad" but there are many early images with crummy lighting, bad knock-outs, ridiculous cropping, even with lousy color shifts. Some kind of basic criteria could and should be applied to images every 2 or 3 years so non-sellers could be thrown out.

wut

« Reply #81 on: January 28, 2012, 11:36 »
0
The Tata Nano is an inexpensive, rear-engined, four-passenger city car built by Tata Motors and is aimed primarily at the Indian domestic market. Some say it is the cheapest car in the world. The jury is out on whether it is successful or not. Ferraris and Corvettes have been around for a long time but are bought by too few "everyday" people.

The point was really that the price should rise along with quality, you can't charge a Ferrari price, for the worst supersports car. Perhaps it would be better if I mentioned Kia vs Rolls or something...

« Reply #82 on: January 28, 2012, 12:44 »
0
I personally welcome that reviewing is getting tougher. One of the reasons why the Micro is in a bit of a mess, is the fact that just about "anybody"  can get in. Shouldnt be like that at all.
Too similar or too much, comments,  well, it just shows, the reviewers are doing their job, really.  Might feel a bit tough but in the loing run it will work for our benefit. :)

Be honest, whats the point of doing like IS,  accepting every bit of generic rubbish followed by spamming, broken searches, glitches and bugs all over the place.

Trust me, it's not tougher, it's just stupid. When I say a "batch" I don't mean it's all same series. I shoot anything from landscape and food to studio portraits to concepts and still lives. The images I submit are diverse in content and well as style, and they are the highest technical quality. When I submit to macros, most of my stuff is getting accepted (and sells).

« Reply #83 on: January 28, 2012, 12:58 »
0
I personally welcome that reviewing is getting tougher. One of the reasons why the Micro is in a bit of a mess, is the fact that just about "anybody"  can get in. Shouldnt be like that at all.
Too similar or too much, comments,  well, it just shows, the reviewers are doing their job, really.  Might feel a bit tough but in the loing run it will work for our benefit. :)

Be honest, whats the point of doing like IS,  accepting every bit of generic rubbish followed by spamming, broken searches, glitches and bugs all over the place.

Trust me, it's not tougher, it's just stupid. When I say a "batch" I don't mean it's all same series. I shoot anything from landscape and food to studio portraits to concepts and still lives. The images I submit are diverse in content and well as style, and they are the highest technical quality. When I submit to macros, most of my stuff is getting accepted (and sells).

And your images are flawless.  Reviewed enough of them at LuckyOliver to say with confidence that any reviewer who rejects your images doesn't have a clue about what they are doing.

lagereek

« Reply #84 on: January 28, 2012, 12:59 »
0
I personally welcome that reviewing is getting tougher. One of the reasons why the Micro is in a bit of a mess, is the fact that just about "anybody"  can get in. Shouldnt be like that at all.
Too similar or too much, comments,  well, it just shows, the reviewers are doing their job, really.  Might feel a bit tough but in the loing run it will work for our benefit. :)

Be honest, whats the point of doing like IS,  accepting every bit of generic rubbish followed by spamming, broken searches, glitches and bugs all over the place.

Trust me, it's not tougher, it's just stupid. When I say a "batch" I don't mean it's all same series. I shoot anything from landscape and food to studio portraits to concepts and still lives. The images I submit are diverse in content and well as style, and they are the highest technical quality. When I submit to macros, most of my stuff is getting accepted (and sells).

Oh I believe you, but thats you,  I was talking about the average submitter. I know your stuff is top-notch. :)

« Reply #85 on: January 28, 2012, 13:36 »
0
Trust me, it's not tougher, it's just stupid. When I say a "batch" I don't mean it's all same series. I shoot anything from landscape and food to studio portraits to concepts and still lives. The images I submit are diverse in content and well as style, and they are the highest technical quality. When I submit to macros, most of my stuff is getting accepted (and sells).
Nobody will contradict you Elena since most of us know your portfolio as one of the monuments of stock.

The "similars" policy of DT is pretty stubborn but Achilles swears by it and it's his site. He is a nice guy but he hasn't the monopoly on stock-truth. By coincidence I had a look at DT this evening with another IP/browser and not logged in. I was shocked to see them use the argument too of "cheapest in the industry" (sic). Hey sorry, I don't want to be the "cheapest" since I have to pay my equipment and bus rides to the studio and if a customer wants it "cheap", he can go to heroturko. Flickr or shoot it himself.

There are 2 possible attitudes one can have. One is to scorn the agency, and the other one is to just take it as it is. Other sites will sell it, and by Jove, nobody is married to one single site except exclusives that sold their soul. Dammit those rules of exclusivity, they wouldn't stand any trial at a decent labor court. They own your total personality, especially DT with their very strict exclusivity rules. At iStock, you can still sell RM. Even if a DT exclusive earns 4x more than me with a comparable port (I got evidence) I'd rather throw all my stuff for free on Flickr than give my soul away for peanuts and I don't care other people will step in to copy good sellers.

One of my current focuses is to shoot tribal folks in the Philippines. I know it isn't stock but I don't care. Of the last series  they started rejecting after just 4 because of "similars". But is was a story. I will soon delete those 4 shots they accepted since they aren't worth it. They even took the worst shots.

I had an editor of a German travel magazine that site-emailed me if I had more of the Intha leg-rowing people in Myanmar of which there are a couple exclusive on DT. I said sure, but DT won't accept them since they are "similars". Send them all, said the editor and I made more on those shots than 3 months regular income on DT. If DT would have accepted all those "similar" shots I wouldn't even be bothered to sell those privately. That's how they miss business by the taboo "similars" hangup but I have no critique at all since it's their business. I just don't want to go exclusive there any more. Unless they sponsor my camera and my time.

« Reply #86 on: January 28, 2012, 13:58 »
0


There are 2 possible attitudes one can have. One is to scorn the agency, and the other one is to just take it as it is.

I think this is a great quote.  Because there really isn't much of an alternative.  As a lot of you know I'm pretty new to uploading at sites other than Fotolia.  I am making less than $100 a month at Dreamstime right now and to me the reason is pretty clear.  I've got just around 600 photos in my portfolio where with SS I started the exact same time and have over 2,000. 

There is a little bit of fear of uploading to DT because of their policy to lower your upload limits with excessive rejections which as has been thoroughly discussed come quickly and often regardless of the quality of the image or the ludicrous comparison to a moderately similar image.  So to avoid having my upload limit lowered for whatever reason, I let images sit in my queue un-submitted.  I am aware this is stupid because by doing so I'm not even maximizing my upload limit as it sits.   

I like the site.  I'm getting to like the concept more now of the increased price based on sales (it took a while for me to appreciate it).  I believe there is a lot of money to be made there.  I just see it as a real challenge to build a portfolio there that will consistently bring in large payouts.  As it stands, I put it second to last on my list of priorities when submitting images.

Mat

« Reply #87 on: January 28, 2012, 22:11 »
0
@Karimala and @Lagereek and @FD - thank you guys.  But that's exactly the thing I am frustrated about - shouldn't reviewers be able to tell the difference between someone who submits 20 images of a pizza slice on white shot from different angles and someone who submits a series of images that actually tell a story? My expectations were that a reviewer should. I actually had very reasonable reviews when Ellen Boughn was DTs creative director, was sad to see her leave.
I wonder how much of these ridiculous reviews we are seeing is Achilles' original idea and how much of it is just reviewers not understanding what he wants them to do. A guy who founded such successful agency should be able to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot here.

rinderart

« Reply #88 on: January 29, 2012, 02:14 »
0
@Karimala and @Lagereek and @FD - thank you guys.  But that's exactly the thing I am frustrated about - shouldn't reviewers be able to tell the difference between someone who submits 20 images of a pizza slice on white shot from different angles and someone who submits a series of images that actually tell a story? My expectations were that a reviewer should. I actually had very reasonable reviews when Ellen Boughn was DTs creative director, was sad to see her leave.
I wonder how much of these ridiculous reviews we are seeing is Achilles' original idea and how much of it is just reviewers not understanding what he wants them to do. A guy who founded such successful agency should be able to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot here.

I hear ya girlfriend, We both go back awhile. This similar thing is really getting me down.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 11:26 by rinderart »

« Reply #89 on: January 31, 2012, 09:49 »
0
I don' know about you guys, but this January on DT was unbelievable for me. A 50 credits sale, a lot of 7'8'10 credits ones...really excellent. The problem is they are rejecting 70% of my images and they became really strict...
I just passed SS appication and trying iStock. Now I have to decide when to quit exclusivity with DT...tough call...

« Reply #90 on: January 31, 2012, 10:11 »
0
a tough call?
You dont mean that.

Exclusivity it the same as limiting your possibilities.

and on one of the minor agencies. That doesnt make sence.
DT doest not really provide the turnover that justifies such a decition.

Now get used to SS and see what amount of DLs your pictures are worth.

lagereek

« Reply #91 on: January 31, 2012, 11:06 »
0
@Karimala and @Lagereek and @FD - thank you guys.  But that's exactly the thing I am frustrated about - shouldn't reviewers be able to tell the difference between someone who submits 20 images of a pizza slice on white shot from different angles and someone who submits a series of images that actually tell a story? My expectations were that a reviewer should. I actually had very reasonable reviews when Ellen Boughn was DTs creative director, was sad to see her leave.
I wonder how much of these ridiculous reviews we are seeing is Achilles' original idea and how much of it is just reviewers not understanding what he wants them to do. A guy who founded such successful agency should be able to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot here.

I hear ya girlfriend, We both go back awhile. This similar thing is really getting me down.

Dont kid yourself, she has been my girlfriend for over 20 years, now we are planing children, one boy and one girl and theyre going to be microstockers.

« Reply #92 on: January 31, 2012, 11:15 »
0
What's ironic and particularly frustrating to me is that in the past three days I've had sales of two series.  In both cases, a buyer (I assume it's one buyer) purchased a bunch (nine in one case, eleven in the other) of images of the same model from the same shoot.  I can't help believing that DT would be making more money for me and for themselves if more of my work from each shoot were available.  It certainly works out that way at Shutterstock and CanStock.

« Reply #93 on: January 31, 2012, 11:34 »
0
@Karimala and @Lagereek and @FD - thank you guys.  But that's exactly the thing I am frustrated about - shouldn't reviewers be able to tell the difference between someone who submits 20 images of a pizza slice on white shot from different angles and someone who submits a series of images that actually tell a story? My expectations were that a reviewer should. I actually had very reasonable reviews when Ellen Boughn was DTs creative director, was sad to see her leave.
I wonder how much of these ridiculous reviews we are seeing is Achilles' original idea and how much of it is just reviewers not understanding what he wants them to do. A guy who founded such successful agency should be able to see that they are shooting themselves in the foot here.

I hear ya girlfriend, We both go back awhile. This similar thing is really getting me down.

Dont kid yourself, she has been my girlfriend for over 20 years, now we are planing children, one boy and one girl and theyre going to be microstockers.

Yeah it's good not to have high expectations for ur kids so u don't end up being disappointed. ;D

« Reply #94 on: January 31, 2012, 14:04 »
0
The first image was rejected by Dreamstime for too many images of the same subject. The second image is the only other candle in my port.

 
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 14:09 by rimglow »

« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2012, 14:35 »
0
not surprised.. amazing.. from one of the best stock executers.. colors, isolation, incredible stuff always.. really nuts looking what they are doing..

« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2012, 14:49 »
0
The first image was rejected by Dreamstime for too many images of the same subject. The second image is the only other candle in my port.


the rejection of "too many of this subject" is different to rejection for similars. In this case they meant they have plenty handles already, even if not yours: http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?srh_field=candle+holder

p.s. I am very annoyed too by their policy about "similar images" :(

« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2012, 14:54 »
0
Here's the rejection:

"Too many photos/illustrations on the same subject or from the same series. Your submission should not duplicate content already in your portfolio or content which you plan to upload separately in the future (ie. collages based on your images). Please be more selective and choose only the best shots or illustrations. Avoid submitting simple variations on the same subject or duplicating content already in your portfolio (including from collages). You can create sets of similars (several shots included within the same image)."

Maybe the flames were too similar. Seems pretty picky.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 15:01 by rimglow »

« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2012, 15:15 »
0
probably in this case inspector just selected the wrong reason from the list :)

« Reply #99 on: January 31, 2012, 16:08 »
0
The first image was rejected by Dreamstime for too many images of the same subject. The second image is the only other candle in my port.


the rejection of "too many of this subject" is different to rejection for similars. In this case they meant they have plenty handles already, even if not yours: http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?srh_field=candle+holder

p.s. I am very annoyed too by their policy about "similar images" :(


are you serious? if we look into that they would approve 10 pics a month..


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Its alive!

Started by josh_crestock Crestock.com

9 Replies
2832 Views
Last post November 14, 2008, 10:08
by MikLav
4 Replies
2206 Views
Last post May 23, 2013, 11:03
by sharpshot
79 Replies
20087 Views
Last post August 16, 2010, 15:09
by Blufish
52 Replies
10500 Views
Last post December 14, 2010, 09:57
by disorderly
Stocksy is Alive

Started by cgartist « 1 2 ... 5 6 » Stocksy

141 Replies
11338 Views
Last post December 30, 2013, 04:38
by topol

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors