|
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 - gillian vann
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56
1226
« on: November 22, 2012, 18:28 »
^don't they do theirs a month earlier?
1227
« on: November 22, 2012, 18:25 »
Ok, one possible scenario consists of two sides of the coin(just playing around with probabilities) :
1. ...
Photographers' compensation will decrease even more (happening already), so it will be more convenient and cost-effective to hire a photographer than to find a suitable high quality stock photo. So, I see huge cheap lower (but reasonable) quality libraries of images on one end, and higher quality custom produced work on the other.... and no place for traditional stock agencies.
you think so? I'm charging $300 for 10 images for business' marketing needs. Most of the time they need me cos they don't want the fake look of stock images, but the reality is that their workplace is usually unattractive, as are their staff, so my pics don't look as good as stock, but cost more. Ha! So long as newbie 'togs don't come in and start charging $100 for a giant shoot then I'm doing my bit to keep myself employed but also keep the stock side looking attractive.
1228
« on: November 22, 2012, 18:19 »
#2 is pretty realistic in terms of the general population. I shoot socials a lot and 99% of people use their phones to take pics. Last night there were 6 of us real photographers (working for various media) and one in-house staffer who had a cheap SLR, not another real camera to be seen. Same story can be told at weddings nowadays. So for many areas of photography (like portraiture, weddings etc) I think we are going to be ok as most people can't look past the convenience of their phones as a camera.
Those who shoot solely for stock are very talented and committed to be making a living from just the one genre. Like most photographers we have to be willing to shoot anything to make a living.
1229
« on: November 22, 2012, 18:07 »
Do any sites give us the option to opt out of subscription sales?
Seems to me that while they keep cutting our commission this would be a good way to give us back some control.
It hurts to see an image sold as "large" for $1.70 and then "XL" at 25c under subscription.
It's a defacto free section really.
1230
« on: November 22, 2012, 17:51 »
I'm up to day 12 of waiting for images to be approved. that seems long for IS?
1231
« on: November 21, 2012, 21:00 »
But I do think new files shouldn't sit in the background for a month or two before seeing the light of day.
oh... that means xmas stuff should have been up in Aug/Sept? ah well. it's only my first xmas in microstock, i'll be better prepared next year.
1232
« on: November 21, 2012, 18:06 »
I find 'faving' a PITA tbh. We don't have to carry out this extra step at any other agency.
sure, but then we do have to do categories, and the keywording hassles at iStock... with up to 3 sub-cats for each one!! in fact, there's a whole lot less boxes to tick when you upload. If people are finding a two month delay in seeing new work sell, surely 123RF should be questioning themselves and looking at how best to put the latest arrivals on display for the buyers, rather than putting the onus on contributors to do this work for them.
I don't disagree with that, but I also think there are plenty of times when images are accepted but never sell on 123 and have sold well elsewhere. So I can fave that one and see if it helps. It works against people like me, who don't upload 12 pics from one series. It's easy to fave just one and have your buyer view similars, but I am cr*p at shooting multiple angles (I'm working at getting better). I'm too rigid, I see one angle that I like and nothing more. So I often only upload 1~3 from a series. My port may have 200 images, with 60 different topics. hard to fave just 10 of those.
1233
« on: November 21, 2012, 16:03 »
mine is still not updated. I'm still hoping for a top up of October, but it may be wishful thinking now.
1234
« on: November 21, 2012, 16:02 »
sort of. If I sold more on DT I'd make more cos they pay better than IS. I'd be happy to see DT move up.
1235
« on: November 21, 2012, 15:38 »
I upload in much smaller batches, but then I'm only just approaching 200 after 8months.
1236
« on: November 20, 2012, 05:18 »
i only just submitted, although my measly earnings aren't going to change the stats. IS takes at least half the month to update last month's stuff. I've also just noted that my SS earnings were increased from what I'd put in my spreadsheet, is that possible? can a buyer come back and purchase a larger version of the file they bought? (like an upgrade?) I don't remember have quite so many of those 1.88 sales, but as I don't keep track of them I don't know.
Never seen that happening on SS. Might it be that they did not close off the last day when you entered the amount in your spreadsheet?
could be. probably just my human error. glad it erred in the right direction.
1237
« on: November 18, 2012, 15:54 »
i only just submitted, although my measly earnings aren't going to change the stats. IS takes at least half the month to update last month's stuff. I've also just noted that my SS earnings were increased from what I'd put in my spreadsheet, is that possible? can a buyer come back and purchase a larger version of the file they bought? (like an upgrade?) I don't remember have quite so many of those 1.88 sales, but as I don't keep track of them I don't know.
1238
« on: November 17, 2012, 04:32 »
so my 2 sales from a mere 48 files is not so bad?
1239
« on: November 16, 2012, 18:28 »
if it is Luxotica (sp?), who own 90% of all glass brand designs, then it would seem we are all in breach. But as has been said, this is about Yuri.
1240
« on: November 15, 2012, 20:09 »
Camera House posted those too on their fb page in Australia. I failed to have even a glimmer of a smile. Apparently using a tripod and changing lenses makes you a "fusspot". what morons, aren't they in the business of selling gear?
the only thing that made me smirk was the use of Canon lenses with those male morons.
1241
« on: November 15, 2012, 03:58 »
not that I'm an expert but I would say those pics are probably in overfilled categories.
At college we were allowed to submit only ONE flower pic throughout the whole course, most of us submitted NONE cos it's just so overdone and you have to be truly wow to impress anyone. I think your work is fine.
another hint: don't do fruit/veg! zoo pics get rejected often and some agencies won't touch them at all.
1242
« on: November 12, 2012, 23:00 »
isn't it odd that they let us use our "real" cameras and then just grunge them in PS? if these pics are supposed to represent mobile photography they are misleading.
1243
« on: November 12, 2012, 22:54 »
I guess it seems petty to do it, there are certainly times when I cut n paste keywords over only to have generic things like "horizontal" or "nobody" or "blue" in the wrong spot. If I was a buyer I reckon I'd do it all the time though.
this person is dodgy though, joins today and then starts flagging keywords? clearly not a newbie, so I suspect his intentions are dishonourable.
1244
« on: November 12, 2012, 21:29 »
I was searching through the DT database to see if there were images like mine already (xmas balls on the beach). There are plenty of images that have nothing to do with the beach, but include that keyword. Do you flag that? or is there a backlash that people feel compelled to start new IDs to hide behind when flagging?
1245
« on: November 12, 2012, 21:26 »
this happened to me today, the flagged keyword is absolutely appropriate. that thread on DT doesn't really deal with this situation, someone who joined today has flagged me? should I feel special?  I'm not longer so small I get ignored? brilliant. (I am though, only 200 images)
1246
« on: November 12, 2012, 21:24 »
but of course not Top Model, which is what iStock recommended?
1247
« on: November 12, 2012, 18:46 »
I really don't want to mix SS up with my personal facebook and I don't have a "business" one that's separate. I do have Linked In and Twitter, but I've never seen any point in using them for business purposes (and I know every business on the planet thinks that this is the hot thing, but I'm not convinced you do anything but piss people off 
That's a long way of saying "No"
thank you for saying it, cos I too think you just annoy people. Lately I've been unliking Pages on fb cos I'm just annoyed at how often they post, and the content is drivel. Don't get me started on Twitter! and Pinterest is a dirty word, even though it's fast becoming the ItGirl of social media. I too have portfolio envy
1248
« on: November 10, 2012, 20:55 »
Interesting. On October 7th, 60 Minutes (American News Program) aired a feature about why eyeglasses are so expensive. Here is the news story...
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7424700n
As far as advice....well, that's for the lawyers to determine. The best way to cover yourself is to get insurance against this sort of thing (I use Hill & Usher and have a special rider on the policy for circumstances like this).
v interesting. and makes the idea of going to competitors laughable.... apparently there are none.
1249
« on: November 10, 2012, 19:14 »
surely this is ridiculous. Every item of clothes - even generic Target clothing - worn by our models is recognisable to the original designer, right? same logic should prevail: don't wear our brand in your shoots, but of course it doesn't because it's ridiculous to ask our models to be naked.
whatever brand of glasswear your model wears is not recognisable to me, and yet I'm sure it's already imbedded in my mind as 'cool, beautiful, desirable' merely by seeing them on beautiful women in ads around the world. enough media attention could have a negative impact on the brand, and I love an earlier suggestion to contact their biggest competitor to exclusively use their glasswear in your future shoots. you are in a great position to be able to do that.
1250
« on: November 02, 2012, 17:01 »
that would be nice, but until I'm earning smile-worthy money I'm content with my coloured line graphs.
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
