|
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 - msv
1
« on: May 31, 2018, 10:26 »
How do you opt out of "partner" sales? Anyone know?
I've just had two 0.10 sales, so I've contacted them via chat and I've asked them to opt out from all partner sales: it's been done in real time (at least that's what they say) I was thinking about dropping them, but I see from the stats they're worth about 15% of my microstock income. Is there any feedback from the people who dropped them about the effects on sales on other agencies?
2
« on: June 29, 2009, 09:10 »
Are Lumix-LX3 files suitable for microstock? Have you tried? I wanted to buy one, but I am not sure if I can shoot stock with it.Thanks.
I've got it two months ago, very happy about. I'm getting images accepted without problems on all major sites, the lens is great, the sensor is obviously not on par with a decent dslr, but it's more than enough. I do shoot in jpg, keeping the noise reduction at minimum. I'll be traveling in north india in august and I'm thinking about using the LX3 instead of my 400D, because of the awful performance of the EF-S 17-85. can't afford a decent lens before leaving. mario
3
« on: April 17, 2009, 05:19 »
a bit better than an average day as number of downloads, but got an extended licence, but I don't think this is due to the new best match 
4
« on: February 19, 2009, 10:46 »
I'm a bronze there, no exclusive images.
Based on last 100 sales excel tells me that with new lower commissions and higher pricing I'd increase my earnings by 6%.
I guess their share has grown much more than that, I hope they'll use it wisely.
And in NO WAY I'll give them free images.
5
« on: December 04, 2008, 17:00 »
Argh! I'm stuck too to the US site 
6
« on: December 04, 2008, 08:38 »
Thanks a lot FreezingPics and Sophia, it seems that going for the 24-70 is a wise choice. Now I'm tempted to give a call to a friend in NY coming home in Europe for holidays 
7
« on: December 04, 2008, 07:00 »
The 24-70 2.8 from canon is a nice lens. Although it is quite a bit heavy, as a walkarround lens.
Argh! 950g? Well I think I can stand that for less hassle when correcting pictures! I've got no primes, I was thinking about trying the cheap EF 50 1.8 II. I've read enthusiastic opinions about it. Is its image quality superior compared to the 24-70 at 50mm? In short: should I spare my money and spend it on the bigger one?
8
« on: December 04, 2008, 05:57 »
Hi, I'll be going for 5DMKII next year, but I'd like to replace first the horrible EF-S 17-85 IS on my Rebel XTi... I'd like to get a handy walkaround lens good enough to be used later on the 5D (primarily with travel photography in mind).
I was thinking to follow Leaf's advice and get a EF 24-70 2.8... any other ideas?
Thanks
Mario
9
« on: November 10, 2008, 11:05 »
Terrible. So far I felt lucky to not have been hit too much in october by the new best match, now see by yourself:  This is not good at all.
10
« on: October 01, 2008, 05:22 »
looking at the image ids it seems that the second one is older, so...
11
« on: September 10, 2008, 06:08 »
12
« on: September 10, 2008, 05:27 »
I was wondering too about them. Especially after I found my picture on the cover of one of their guides: http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Lumpur-Melaka-Regional/dp/1741044855/ref=pd_sxp_f_iSince I knew they used their own photographers I though at first it was a very similar image to mine, but I found it's mine indeed. No trace of a similar image in their collection. After the initial joy, I checked that I had no EL on this image, and may be it's ok, I don't think they sell 250.000 copies of a regional Malaysia guide, anyway I'd like to check.
13
« on: September 01, 2008, 19:56 »
I just got a referral on IS today, September 1, 2008. And what is the amount I was paid? $10.00.
Typical of IS.
May be it was a referral from august, IS does take some time (even a week) to confirm the referral.
14
« on: September 01, 2008, 10:42 »
Overall rank 2181
7 days rank 2992
very slow week
15
« on: September 01, 2008, 02:40 »
4,2% And just had one this morning, hope it'll be an interesting september
16
« on: August 31, 2008, 07:15 »
If you don't sort keywords by relevance then you wont sell very much at Fotolia. Why don't you just write your keywords in order of relevance in the first place? Then FT is happy, nobody else cares and you'll sell more photo's. Right now it's just you who's losing out.
that was half year ago. Today keyword order at FT is not important anymore. Tested.
I keep all keywords, titles etc in IPTC data in the source TIFF files, I try to keep there in order, but I focus my metadata on top earners. I'm happy the order in Fotolia is not relevant anymore, now what about the 7 keywords limit? I've read contrasting opinions and tests about. Anyway I'd follow their guidelines if the search engine was a bit reliable.
17
« on: August 29, 2008, 10:14 »
For me it's the #7 earner on 7 sites I submit to.
I don't like Fotolia and Fotolia doesn't like me.
I know, I should sort keywords by relevance, pick up right categories etc, but I'll never do that for them as long as they keep such a poor site and awkward behaviors.
Maybe someday they'll change, meanwhile I just upload and try not to care about what they say.
18
« on: August 27, 2008, 09:15 »
I requested to switch from us fotolia to German fotolia, and they did it. I am now payed in euro which is a higher payout for me.
I've asked the switch from US to IT some time ago and they told me it was not possible and that I had to start from scratch if I wanted. :| Did you just contact support? I used the internal messaging system...
19
« on: July 30, 2008, 10:36 »
It's one of the worst issues with my Canon EF-S 17-85 IS.
It is very irritating, one of the best things to do is to shoot RAW and fix in software using the manufacturer's plugin/settings for your specific lens.
If you shoot jpg then color replace tool in photoshop is an option.
Anyway I'm looking for a better lens.
20
« on: June 09, 2008, 09:03 »
I've been using it for a year now, the camera is ok, noise is ok if exposing correctly, but unfortunately the EF-S 17-85 IS lens I got with it is terrible for stock especially because of extreme chromatic aberration and softness on the sides.
Looking forward a new lens, may be a 24-70L (going full frame in the future), what do you think?
21
« on: April 17, 2008, 10:51 »
Yeah they can keep my $12.60. I am sure our money's long gone into the R&D of the company. Brian's already lost his business. No need to make it any worse by making a fuss over a couple of buckys.
yep, I think the same about my $3. the time needed to convert/use them (and to write about in a forum ) is worth more than that.
22
« on: April 16, 2008, 17:55 »
I was wondering if Bryan tried to sell the whole site before taking this decision. The site could well be worth some decent money.
The announcement itself could be a call for buyers willing to enter stock market with a reduced investment and a base of content, traffic and users.
Who knows. Sure it's a pity, I like LO.
23
« on: February 26, 2008, 12:05 »
Well, this cleans up any doubts I could have about trying CanStockPhoto.
About standards, I'd rather be submitting to RM agencies instead of wasting time with them.
24
« on: February 05, 2008, 05:01 »
Is it so? I would have never guessed. My FT emails always come from FT addresses (I've even checked some I have filed), and it is nevertheless strange to have a link to a site that is not FT.
It's a recent change, I noticed it because I had to change my outlook filters for the mail coming from them.
25
« on: November 23, 2007, 06:14 »
This is unacceptable. full stop.
I'd never buy anything there, and I'm asking myself why I'm still uploading.
Ok, it's better I shut up, or I'll end up in a not too polite way...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
