|
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 - Microstockphoto
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49
1126
« on: September 03, 2015, 06:13 »
I doubt anyone made money there, let alone be a good money maker
Skillfeed was never viable from the start, they had to compete with youtube and lynda. Lynda had much more professional content to begin with and the amatuer videos on skillfeed never enticed me to pay up, youtube is free.
1127
« on: September 02, 2015, 02:45 »
gotta love the rollercoaster ride that is shutterstock, from BMY (july) to WMY (august), rooosh
1128
« on: September 02, 2015, 02:29 »
the adobe announcement is a big contrast to the excrement of this mafia outfit
1129
« on: August 30, 2015, 16:28 »
1130
« on: August 27, 2015, 13:50 »
I'd say, if the earnings would have been changed, this forum would have exploded. FWIW, I am still having all earnings as expected, I dont care so much what they're called. I think it is safe to say, earnings havent changed. Yet
1131
« on: August 27, 2015, 05:54 »
Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!
yet you are still selling your images there
1132
« on: August 26, 2015, 02:18 »
My sales this month plummet nicely along the plummet of the shares. Well done Shutterstock. Cant wait for the price cut.
1133
« on: August 22, 2015, 18:48 »
I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.
thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.
OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them. digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.
The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.
Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.
why did you give the micros your work then? You didn't have to. And why would a company hire a photographer when they can buy stock?
really??...Ya know theres a lot of products, probably Billions that companies can't find on a stock site. They hire Photographers. hate to break the news. thats who i work for.and they want something a lot more specific than a can of beer or Bottle of mustard isolated. LOL
Which one is it, they dont hire photographers or they do? And if you work for those companies that hire photographers, you dont need to be on the micros, I gather from your comments. You are contradicting yourself now.
1134
« on: August 22, 2015, 07:50 »
I think this is because lots of contributors shoot the same object in countless different positions and angles. And then you have 5 different subjects, each having 50 different photo variations and there you have 250 images that look almost identical. Add thousands of contributors that are doing the same and here you go, hundreds of thousand of photos each week.
thats so true but sadly all selling sites still accept this kinda images because of their only think is to rise their own stock images amount, sadly including istock too anymore, what a blind sight, I wonder what will happen much much later, when the number of junk pictures so much increase in a unpredictable manner, customers will need to make hours of search.
OR....Hopefully we'll go back to the days when companies actually Hired Photographers to shoot for them. digital came along, then Micro and everyone is a Photographer. Ya right. Digital made it to where everyone can enjoy Photography, It also killed traditional Stock work Done By a select few that made a living at it.
The minute companies discovered that we'll take 20 cents. we were done and I blame the original Microsites for going so Low especially Istock, then the rest. And I also Blame us for letting this happen. We went from a $400 average commission to 20 Cents in a week.
Biggest problem we face is to many are happy with 25/38 cents still , 12 years later. Thats the vast majority of submitters guys and there joining at a alarming Rate.
why did you give the micros your work then? You didn't have to. And why would a company hire a photographer when they can buy stock?
1135
« on: August 20, 2015, 16:51 »
Well, there goes this thread. Politics and religion strikes again. those 2 subjects will Kill any good discussion.
speaking of kill, don't forget the gun discussion
1136
« on: August 19, 2015, 16:35 »
Tell me something I don't know
1137
« on: August 18, 2015, 06:56 »
If you are going to submit it as editorial go back to the version with the logos on it as there would be more use for a camera image with the exact markings on it. A generic camera with no markings is not much good when illustrating an article about a specific camera and that is the only reason it would sell in the editorial market.
Your not supposed to alter an editorial image anyway
1138
« on: August 13, 2015, 02:55 »
Nothing about CS6
1139
« on: August 12, 2015, 02:26 »
The markup is material. If you go to a photo and choose a print and then click pricing details its all broken down for you. It is quite transparent to be honest.
1140
« on: August 09, 2015, 09:55 »
1141
« on: August 07, 2015, 13:23 »
Well they keep some rude manners then, assuming what I have read on the last 2 pages is true.
1142
« on: August 07, 2015, 08:03 »
Yes, 15th July until end of August is the dead zone everywhere.
Good time to produce content for autumn!
Second half of July was really good for me 
1143
« on: August 07, 2015, 08:02 »
July equalled my BME, which just proves it is 'YMMV' on the whole topic. Summer-slump is a real thing, but it all depends on the subjects in your portfolio really. Diversity rules.
1144
« on: August 07, 2015, 05:43 »
Same here! LOTS of rejections mostly for the images being similar (even vaguely) to other images I have online. But that's not the only reason. Today I had this one too:
"For all nude images (body parts or whole) you must attach a model release + an official ID document of the model (ID card, passport, driver's license)."
The image they are rejecting is the classic "woman holding orange next to her thighs", it's model released and it's a closeup of her thighs and bottom and she's wearing a thong. They want an ID card for this?! Really?!
Agencies link all images of the same model by use of the MR. In the image you describe she might not be recognisable, but in other images of her you may have, where she is eating the orange for example, she will be recognisable. I guess they want to CYA and have an ID just to be sure. (When I shoot the same model nude or in clothes I use 2 separate MRs. That way the nude photos of the same model remain kind of anonymous (I shoot nude from the neck down)).
1145
« on: August 06, 2015, 17:27 »
SSTK was totally overvalued, but SS the company is doing just fine.
That is what is the problem, investors will want their money back. So yes SS is doing fine, nonetheless, they will be under pressure to get those stocks up again. Guess what happens next.
1146
« on: August 05, 2015, 19:31 »
Wasn't that a one off thing? Normally they are reported IRT.
1147
« on: August 05, 2015, 04:09 »
I can understand a $28 refund, but $0,36?? What kind of buyer wastes time and money to get their 36 CENT back??
1148
« on: July 30, 2015, 09:16 »
First 12 days of July were shambles, then it picked up. Decent month, better than July 14, better than June 15.
1149
« on: July 29, 2015, 16:42 »
...and you're going to match the fairer royalty split of your competitors, right?
Aaron answer this please
1150
« on: July 29, 2015, 15:10 »
Over the years I have come to understand that when agencies say they are listening, it really means they are hit by the stupid stick.
Pages: 1 ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
