MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - mtilghma

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
1
Print on Demand Forum / Re: colour is different in FAA
« on: October 17, 2016, 11:04 »
Realize this is old, but not sure the solution is that simple.  I've noticed the same problem.  I also noticed that any other website I upload to, including similar print on demand websites, don't have the same issue.  I also noticed that photos I uploaded to FAA a while ago did not have that problem.  I found an old photo on FAA that looked correct to me.  Screenshotted it.  Re-uploaded the photo, with the same identical JPG that I originally uploaded, and the color changed into the duller color you mention.  At that point, I decided it was something on their end, and paid no more attention.  Unfortunate, but I'm not going to alter my photos colormaps so it looks better on their website.

2
The "insights -> image gallery stats" is the easiest way to see the title/description I think

3
Maybe this was my offending description:  "Rare Brazilian Rain Tree (Pithecellobium tortum or Chloroleucon tortum) in Bloom" 

So spammy!!

4
Hmm I got the same thing!  I also keyword manually very painstakingly, too.  I also emailed them for specific examples.

5
Hah.  The one old crow posted listed "weico art" as the brand.  I googled them and went to their website, and tried to find the pricing.  Check out their FAQ section: http://www.wiecoart.com/?page_id=100 .  Look at the questions under the different categories.  I got a pretty good laugh haha.  Not too confident in their legitimacy. 

6
What price? How big?  Anything special about them (canvas, acrylic, framed, etc.)?  Cheapest I used to ever do was costco, who can get you a 16x20 for $7 or a 20x30 for $10.  Obvious unframed and standard paper.  I used to do this a bit, you can actually get really good results because costco uses good printers and will actually make their printer's color profile available to you if you ask.  So you can massage the results much like you would if you had your own printer.  I was very happy with my results and sold quite a few.  Too much work for me though, now if I ever dabble on eBay I just list it at the same price it would be on FAA and just order it on FAA shipped to the buyer.

Anyways, not sure if those prices are as low as what you were seeing.  I looked at the one posted by old crow, and yes, I have no idea how they could get it that cheap with canvas.

7
Print on Demand Forum / Re: Need Cafe Press Followers!
« on: December 21, 2014, 09:51 »
Mike, you prefer RedBubble?  For now I really only upload POD to FAA, Zazzle, and RedBubble, and if I had to rank my normalized income, it would be FAA: 1, Zazzle: 0.4, RedBubble: 0.05.  It's almost nothing.  Are your results different?  The main thing I prefer about them, and really the only reason I keep uploading, is that if you put a link in your description and submit it to some of the galleries, google analytics counts all those as legit backlinks.

8
I think I agree with you, if you only take it that far.  I have made the profile and made several sets, organizing my best photos, etc.  I see the use in that, marginally (how different is it than the existing categories, if it's only taken this far)?

What I don't like is how we are encouraged to hawk these sets via social media.  Do I see contributors hawking their sets as detrimental to SS? No, not really.  I do, however, see it as detrimental to me.  There are many many many contributors who are better "social butterflies" than me, though perhaps not better photographers.  I know, being a photographer is as much about marketing as it is about photography, but I don't even think this hawking will help them directly.  I just fear that we'll be ranked by the "social traffic" we generate, even if that traffic does not relate to sales.

9
I'm not a fan of this.  Some may see it as a way to market your work yourself, thus supplementing the marketing your work receives.  I see it as a gateway towards them pawning off the marketing job on us.

I totally agree with you. The site visitors which they attracted through their marketing can find your work on their own. This is just a blatant shifting of responsibility. Whatever you do, do not make use of this function and support the fascist pigs.







more for me than you....  8)

I know this was in jest, but I do feel the need to mention that I think you misunderstood my point.  I do not think that my buyers could have found my work on their own, and that SS's marketing has not helped me.  Quite the opposite.  I'm terrified of the potential eventuality that they reduce their marketing and tell me to do it myself via social platforms, because I'd be like a fish out of water.  I feel that my success at SS is dependent on their marketing, not my own, which seems to be the opposite of what you got out of my post.

10
You guys obviously don't have to agree with me.  In fact I'm relieved that you don't.

But for clarity, I did not say they have ever shirked the responsibility yet.  They've been great and are my favorite agency.  I even bought some stock!  But I am nevertheless unsettled by the doors this opens.  Yes, it opens some good ones.  But it also sets the (potential) path in motion for them telling us our worth to them is related to things other than our photo portfolio.  I see them ranking us, in someway, based on the traffic we bring into the site.  Some of you will want that.  I don't.

11
I'm not a fan of this.  Some may see it as a way to market your work yourself, thus supplementing the marketing your work receives.  I see it as a gateway towards them pawning off the marketing job on us.

12
Dreamstime.com / Re: anybody else having poor sales
« on: October 19, 2012, 11:07 »
DT for me has stopped to a standstill.  It is being outperformed by every site I submit to except depositphotos

13
I'd join if landscapes count as people!  :D   After all, corporations already do....

14
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS Facelift
« on: July 25, 2012, 18:32 »
I have yet to find anything more or less intuitive or useful, but I will say that I think it looks worse... just looks way less stylish than the last.

15
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia Gotcha
« on: July 21, 2012, 14:04 »
Yep, my defaults were always set to "exclusive: No", but it go reset to yes a few days ago.  I just had to delete a few photos after noticing this after-the-fact and resubmit them.  Complete BS.

16
I could see it gaining a foothold for those editorial photos one may capture with their phone when they just happen to be in the right place at the right time when something big goes down... maybe.

17
iStockPhoto.com / Re: hahahaha oh iStock
« on: June 25, 2012, 13:12 »
Same here. The money they gave me last Friday, taken away today.

They sure know how to give you a good weekend feeling but crush you the first day of the following week.

Not amused.

that means you must have had more riding on this than my measly $0.24... yea, that does suck.

18
iStockPhoto.com / hahahaha oh iStock
« on: June 25, 2012, 11:51 »
I got this email a week or so ago (I know there's another thread with a similar email):

Hello,

Between January 1-4 a bug occurred which incorrectly dropped your royalty rate by one level, meaning you were paid 5% less on downloads during that period. We have run a script to identify downloads that should have been paid at the higher rate between Jan 1 and Jan 4, 2012. Your account has now been credited with the outstanding amounts. Below is a summary of affected downloads.

    FileID         Amount Paid     Correct Amount   Difference         Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0003980625          $00.72               $00.78             $00.06        1/2/2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0013498542          $01.44               $01.56             $00.12        1/4/2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0017195985          $00.84               $00.90             $00.06        1/4/2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Amount Paid: $0.24


Then today, I got this email:

Hello,

   We have run a script that should have paid out your 2012 Redeemed Credit royalty rate from Jan 1 to Jan 4, 2012 to rectify the royalty change that occurred at that time. Unfortunately this script was processed incorrectly, inaccurate payment and information were sent via e-mail to those affected. We will be removing the incorrect payments made (today - June 22, 2012) and will insure the correct amounts are sent out as soon as possible.

   Total Amount Removed: $0.24.

   We apologize profusely for this inconvenience. If you have any further questions please contact Contributor Relations.

   Best Regards,
   iStockphoto



hahahahaha I can't stop laughing.  What a joke!

19
Yes I think we are saying the same thing.

What I'm saying is, it would be possible to game such a system by uploading the crummy photos.  But in that case, the business would go out of business really fast.  There's no way, on average, it can benefit both us and them in the long run.

20
You dont have a single picture which has grossed less than $1 over the past year at a given agency, even DT or FT?  Wish I could say the same, but there are definitely some which are downloaded 1 or 2 times a year.  Maybe it's just me.

21
luis is right, the relevant question is not whether an image makes over $1 per year, but whether it makes over $1 per year per agency.

A good image? yes.  A bad image?  it makes well over $1 per year on SS or iS, but probably less on 123RF or CanStockPhoto (again, I'm taking about bad images).

The kicker, however, is that for such a business model to stay in business, they would have to be very picky about accepting only good images.  So I don't think it can be an improvement for a good image, and the owner would have to only select really good images.

22
Shutterstock.com / Re: File download warning
« on: May 25, 2012, 14:06 »
I get it 100% of the time on both chrome and FF.  I have to navigate there by googling for SS forum

23
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock site mail
« on: May 18, 2012, 19:44 »
hold on guys, you keep overlooking something.... my portfolio IS perfect!! it's not empty flattery!

just kiddingggg

24
iStockPhoto.com / iStock site mail
« on: May 18, 2012, 12:26 »
I just got a message a few days ago:

"Hello,
my name is ___. I would like to discuss a possibility of cooperation with you.
It concerns your great portfolio. Could you please provide me your contact details, whether
e-mail or phone number?
Thanks in advance."

My response:

"Hi ___,

This is as good a place to contact me as any!
Looking forward to hearing back,

Matt"

Her response:

"Hello Matt,

if you don't mind, I will send you a private letter. It would be more suitable both for you and for us. It's concerning your perfect portfolio.

Please, don't worry. It's not a spam letter.

Regards,
_____"


This is when I stop responding, right?

25
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock enjoying slight resurgence
« on: May 14, 2012, 12:30 »
I'd say it has stabilised at the (much) lower level to which it has descended. That may be what gave Istock's management the confidence to increase prices yet again __ so it may not last for long.

Hrmm... I don't really read those newsletters (my time is better devoted elsewhere), and have been absent from the forums for a while.  I didn't even know they raised prices again.  That could be the sole reason for my "resurgence".... not the reason I was hoping for.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors