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 - Allsa
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
101
« on: March 24, 2013, 21:57 »
I wrote to BS support and asked them to deactivate my portfolio without closing my account. I don't want to close my account altogether, in the hope that the situation at BS might improve in the future. I don't know if BS will give me that option though, I'm waiting to find out what they say. I'll remove my portfolio if they leave me not other choice. I'll let you know how it goes when I hear back from BS.
Be interested to hear how you get on, they didn't give me that option unfortunately, so I closed my account.
I did talk to them at BS and asked if there was an option to deactivate your portfolio while leaving your account open, and they said unfortunately no. I told them that I did not want 27 subs taking away from the 38 subs I get at SS. I told them that like many contributors I had grown cynical regarding agency decisions that in most cases benefit the agencies to the detriment of contributors. They said (I'm paraphrasing here and this is from memory) my cynicism was understandable but urged me to give the new subs program a chance - they said that BS and SS serve different markets, and the subs at BS shouldn't have any effect on my earnings at SS. In spite of my skepticism, I told them I'd stick around and see how the program unfolds before making any decisions. Unlike the typical 'don't let the door hit your a$$ on the way out' attitude that many agencies have, they did seem to genuinely care about my concerns and didn't want me to leave. I'm going to stick around for awhile and see how it goes. Earnings this month are OK, but that includes an EL, so it's hard to make a judgement.
102
« on: March 16, 2013, 12:53 »
I wrote to BS support and asked them to deactivate my portfolio without closing my account. I don't want to close my account altogether, in the hope that the situation at BS might improve in the future. I don't know if BS will give me that option though, I'm waiting to find out what they say. I'll remove my portfolio if they leave me not other choice. I'll let you know how it goes when I hear back from BS.
103
« on: March 15, 2013, 14:32 »
This situation is almost identical to what happened when Getty bought StockXpert - they shut it down, replaced it with ThinkStock, and slashed royalties. SS didn't change Bigstock's name, but it's not the same agency anymore. I've got a bad feeling about this.
104
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:36 »
My funniest rejection was when my 3d rendered mermaid image was rejected because I didn't provide a model release.
105
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:34 »
I've been with Bigstock since 2005, and if the second half of this month is similar to the first, I'll be seeing my lowest monthly BigStock earnings since 2006. Most of my downloads are 27 subs, so tell me, how is this any better that StinkStock? Is there an option to deactivate your portfolio on BS, or do you have to close your account altogether? I'm burning mad about the injustice of being consigned to this 27 ghetto, while the 'Bridge to Bigstock' people enjoy 38 subs. I've been with SS and BS since 2005, and people who came along much later than I have get to enjoy much higher earnings. If that isn't injustice, I don't know what is! I know I'm not alone here, and I was wondering what others stuck in the 27 ghetto have already done or plan on doing.
106
« on: March 14, 2013, 12:09 »
I've run into a weird color problem with one of my vectors. The colors looked good to me in Illustrator both before and after I converted the vector image to jpg. Then I saw them online after they were accepted, and discovered that the colors looked way over-saturated. I uploaded the jpg to my website for a test and discovered the same over-saturated colors there, too. I don't understand it, the colors looked fine in Photoshop and in Windows Explorer. It was only after uploading them that the color change occurred. Oddly enough, the colors look fine on CanStock but none of the other agencies. What am I missing here? Does anyone have any idea why it happened and how I can prevent the problem in the future? Thanks
They looked or they look ? How do jpges look on your comp now ?
How did u save jpgs in what color mode and what u used illustrator to save them or were u opening eps files in PS and re-saving them ?
It has to be something with changing color mode at some point
Yes you were right - my mistake was that I neglected to change the color mode from CMYK to RGB before converting the image to jpg. I just tried converting to RGB first, then saving the jpg. I uploaded the jpg to my webspace and the colors now look fine. Thanks for your help
107
« on: March 13, 2013, 12:06 »
Might be a CMYK/RGB thing, web browsers and image viewers display CMYK JPGs with really strange, saturated colours. What are you using to create these JPGs?
Photoshop CS5
108
« on: March 12, 2013, 20:39 »
I've run into a weird color problem with one of my vectors. The colors looked good to me in Illustrator both before and after I converted the vector image to jpg. Then I saw them online after they were accepted, and discovered that the colors looked way over-saturated. I uploaded the jpg to my website for a test and discovered the same over-saturated colors there, too. I don't understand it, the colors looked fine in Photoshop and in Windows Explorer. It was only after uploading them that the color change occurred. Oddly enough, the colors look fine on CanStock but none of the other agencies. What am I missing here? Does anyone have any idea why it happened and how I can prevent the problem in the future? Thanks
109
« on: March 09, 2013, 22:30 »
Most of us are already well aware of the prison population problem, so instead of more highlighting, how about some suggestions as to how to fix the problem?
Here's a suggestion - end the Drug War, and spend the money saved on drug treatment and prevention programs.
110
« on: March 09, 2013, 22:24 »
I understand how the message behind your vector is meaningful to you.
This is one concept that I wish many contributors would take and use - by that I mean creating images that shine a light on the problem of mass incarceration in the US. I did a search and there is little or no imagery concerning this issue. A much needed discussion about the US for-profit prison system is going mainstream, and I think images that highlight the problem will be in demand. Never thought I'd say this, but please everybody take this idea and run with it!
Your in NY and you want them to release the convicted fellons so NY can be more like South Africa. Maybe they could be more like South America or Russia and just make people disappear or other countrys where politicals or other crimes are just shot which keeps the prison population down. You maybe like the laws from Turkey or Iran where you don't get a trial, you just get exicuted.
A repeat drunken driver convicted in a crash that killed two teenagers has sued his drinking buddy and two Santa Fe restaurants that served him alcohol. Ruiz said in his suit that he was convicted and incarcerated due to the chain of events the defendants set in motion. He's serving a 40-year prison sentence after entering a guilty plea in 2011.
Ruiz was out on bond on his fifth DWI arrest when the fatal crash took place, authorities said.
You want people like him to be freed?
I don't want to see dangerous people on the streets any more than you do, but half of the prisoners in state prisons are there for nonviolent crimes. The US prison population rose 700% from 1970 to 2005, a trend driven mainly by the War on Drugs, which was initiated by President Nixon in 1970. This policy is extremely racist, when you consider the fact that only 13% of the US population is black, yet blacks represent 45% of the people serving time for drug offenses. This, in spite of the fact that blacks use drugs at pretty much the same rate as white people do. Then there is the for-profit prison system in this country, sending their lobbyists to Washington to advocate for tougher drug laws to ensure an ever growing number of "customers", while taxpayers foot the bill. Plus prison labor is dirt cheap, providing workers who can't unionize or take vacations. Why do you think marijuana, which is much safer to consume than alcohol, remains illegal after all these years, in spite of the fact that over 50% of the US population thinks it should be legalized? This isn't about public safety, it's about profits$$$ plain and simple.
111
« on: March 07, 2013, 12:39 »
I understand how the message behind your vector is meaningful to you.
This is one concept that I wish many contributors would take and use - by that I mean creating images that shine a light on the problem of mass incarceration in the US. I did a search and there is little or no imagery concerning this issue. A much needed discussion about the US for-profit prison system is going mainstream, and I think images that highlight the problem will be in demand. Never thought I'd say this, but please everybody take this idea and run with it!
112
« on: March 06, 2013, 16:32 »
Perhaphs they are asking for a bit more detail along the east coast with regard to the shapes. I live on Long Island, NY and it protrudes more easterly into the ocean, not slanted upward as in a northeast angle as shown on your map and Cape Cod appears on your map to be thicker and heavier than the narrow hook it is. I think they are nit-picking about the accuracy of the coastline details on the east coast.
I don't think it was copyright since they said the overall outline, specifically the east coast, was the problem. If this inspector was in NY they would have noticed it right away whereas the first inspector may not be all that familiar with the northeast coast and just looked at the general shape.
I see what you mean about Long Island. I was just going for a recognizable USA outline, and not accuracy, but maybe that's what's bothering them. From the wording I though it was copyright issues, but who knows? I guess I'll resubmit a second time and ask for a more detailed explanation.
113
« on: March 06, 2013, 16:02 »
It could be because there are oh so many already online, best sellers but lots. There is also mail support wich is very helpful over there. You can ask for a detailed rejection reason, it will only help you.gl
From the wording of the rejection, I got the impression that it has something to do with copyright issues. I was wondering if other vector contributors are running into these types of rejections, or if it's just an odd reviewer. I'm wondering if there is any point in resubmitting, and if anyone knows why images with the outline of states aren't acceptable.
114
« on: March 06, 2013, 14:45 »
The vector of this image rejected on SS: http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-usa-prison-capital-world-image29327312The first rejection was due to a technical problem, which I corrected and resubmitted. Then it was rejected a second time - the reason given was that "Overall outline of states is unacceptable (specifically East coast)"How can that be? Why was this problem not mentioned in the first rejection? Could this possibly be a mistake? The issue this illustration refers to is very important to me, so I'm bummed about it not making it into the collection. It seems that it's become more difficult to get vectors accepted these days; I have an easier time getting raster illustrations accepted. For iStock the opposite was true, but I don't upload there anymore.
115
« on: February 28, 2013, 20:55 »
I've had 9 downloads over the past 2 days on BS, and of those 6 of them were 27 subs downloads. How is this any better than StinkStock? I'm still burning from the injustice of receiving a lower royalty simply because I was already on BS when SS initiated the 'Bridge to Bigstock' program. I'm so disgusted that I'm considering closing my account, but I don't want to do anything in anger that I'll regret later. Although if my BS earnings there go much lower I won't have much of anything to lose...
116
« on: February 19, 2013, 21:46 »
[/quote]
I would think that the bridge program will bring over the most sought after SS ports/files while also excluding the junk we need to wade thru as buyers. Therefore it may be easier to find the images buyers need on BS. I think that is why they are still offering .38 for the bridge images.
[/quote]
This is the source of much of my anger regarding the situation - I have been diligently uploading to BS since 2005, and as a reward for my loyalty I get a lousy 27 cents compared to the 'bridge' people who receive 38 cents per subs download. If keep uploading in spite of this gross injustice, it will look like I am OK with it. Long term loyalty should not be rewarded with a kick in the a$$! If there is no opt out on subs I will, at the very least, stop uploading. A little site like BS should not be able to get away with treating contributors like this. And if they do get away with it, it will only serve to embolden the larger agencies.
117
« on: February 19, 2013, 13:57 »
I've got five 27 cent downloads so far. I'm beginning to think I should stop uploading to BS. My earnings there are low enough where I could afford to close my account altogether, but I don't want to take that step just yet. What's everyone else doing?
118
« on: February 14, 2013, 21:52 »
So we just ignore the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock? I think they've made a big mistake and it makes me concerned about the future of SS.
I'd regard Oringer as an excellent agent over the last 8 years, especially over the last two, and so far he has never let me down. I am more than prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt until otherwise proved. Let's see what actually happens before we all get hysterical.
I'm a little concerned that Oringer or some other representative of SS hasn't posted any statements in this forum to reassure us that no royalty cuts are in the works for SS. I mean if our fears are unfounded, why wouldn't they simply let us know right away and put all our worried paranoia to rest?
119
« on: February 14, 2013, 19:01 »
I think it's not in our best interests for any one agency to get too powerful. 123 used to treat us very well, then when their success started to grow, they reacted by instigating royalty cuts based on IS's widely hated RC program. It's reached the point where I would prefer the hassle of uploading to 15 or even 20 small sites rather than continue to get screwed by a very successful few. I think the recent changes at BS show that even SS, with a long history of treating us fairly, can turn against us if and when they become too successful. Problem is, I don't really know what we could possibly to to make that happen...
120
« on: February 02, 2013, 21:55 »
I deactivated 10 more of my images, which brings my total protest deactivations up to 37.
121
« on: February 02, 2013, 13:23 »
20 Deactivated today.
122
« on: January 26, 2013, 19:40 »
Could someone post a link to the images page on Google Drive? I can't seem to get to it anymore. I just wanted to check & see if they have any of my images or not. Last I checked they didn't, but they've added a lot since then, so I want to recheck.
123
« on: January 25, 2013, 11:25 »
Perfectly reasonable concern IMO Allsa. Perhaps if you link to the article, you also include a link to fair trade sites that you are on such as Stockfresh and GLimages on the facebook page? That way you are promoting fair trade but not at the expense of your own sales?
Just a suggestion. 
Thanks Lisa. For a long time I didn't consider GL because I thought it was a vector only agency. Then when they came up in this discussion, I looked into it and discovered they also accept raster illustrations and photos, I'll have to apply. Are DT, SS, BS, and CS considered to be fair trade sites as well?
124
« on: January 24, 2013, 20:29 »
I was all set to post a link to this article on my Facebook page, until one thing stopped me cold - I have no images on any of the linked sites, so how is this to my benefit? Or, for that matter, how does it benefit most independents and ex-exclusives? Most of the links point to private sites that individual microstockers have set up to sell their own work, and then there's the link to Warmpictures, an invitation only site that I was never invited to join. Why would I want to promote a site that I'm unable to join? If there were links to SS, DT, and Canstock, then it would make sense for me to promote this article, as I have a portfolio on those sites and they have a history of treating us fairly. I realize all of the above sounds very self-serving, but microstock has become my livelihood, and so I need to look out for my own interests. I understand that we need to band together to work for the common good and to protect the future of microstock, and I want to do what I can to help, but from what I can see this article has the potential to benefit only a select few. I will be deactivating a minimum of 100 images from my not-so-large port.
Also, I have posted an article about the Deactivation threat from contributors. I have over 2000 followers on Twitter and nearly 1000 on Facebook, most of whom are graphic designers, bloggers, and fellow photographers. This article will be promoted through social media to spread the word to our target audience, and hopefully get the plight of artists recognized by the mainstream media.
Furthermore, as I wrote in the Selling Stock Direct Link Exchange thread, I have included a list of websites from which artists are selling their images direct from. I will have further thoughts in that forum about how to continue revealing how agencies treat artists, and the options buyers have for avoiding the agencies altogether.
http://www.warmpicture.com/blog/2013/01/21/artists-fight-back-d-day-for-istockphoto-and-google/
125
« on: January 20, 2013, 11:46 »
No I don't have Grease Monkey installed, never used it. Can someone post a link? Thanks.
sigh http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Grease+Monkey
That did it! I'm all set now, thanks.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|