|
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 - f8
126
« on: September 03, 2022, 12:56 »
The rejections at AS for photos is getting a bit ridiculous.
The same photos are accepted every other agency but not on AS. I am not clear what is going on but this is a completely new trend at AS. My entire last batch was rejected for "quality standards" which is very odd considering I use a high end camera with the best glass and always on a tripod.
I have resubmitted some of these again and they all get accepted and sell.
The reality is having to resubmit is a waste of time for everyone as we are all doing twice the work. I can understand being rejected for 'too similar' I can understand 'not meeting editorial guidelines' but this 'quality standards' is just wrong on every level.
127
« on: August 30, 2022, 12:47 »
There is nothing to be proud about if you give your work away for free.
Or for $5
128
« on: August 19, 2022, 15:01 »
Hi everyone,
This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.
To avoid this while were working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.
For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.
thanks again,
Mat Hayward
Quick question... How does one get to artboards to change the setting? Until now I have never heard of art boards.
129
« on: August 16, 2022, 10:20 »
No Thanks.
130
« on: August 09, 2022, 14:37 »
pCloud all the way.
131
« on: August 08, 2022, 16:04 »
Here is another thread on the topic... https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/as-rejections/msg578887/?topicseen#newAS the new SS But Matt says this is not true so it must be true. Just because there are now 2 threads on the same nuisance rejections does not mean it's true. But it is true. Between the disambiguation process at IS, the roulette wheel of acceptance as SS and now AS this business for the dimes it offers is getting incredibly exhausting.
132
« on: August 05, 2022, 17:19 »
Is Stock Photography Dead?
No it's not even close to dead. There will always be a huge demand for imagery.
The clear winners are the agencies. They will do fine. So in this case stock photography is not dead or even close to dead.
The contributors on the other hand are the losers and will be continually so going forward. The rates that all the agencies pay is disgraceful and seriously not sustainable in a professional capacity, simply put it is not a growth business and has no sustainable future. Sure there are a very few making a full time living from shooting stock and even those numbers are dwindling.
I am so so so glad I am at the end of my career in stock photography. It has been very good to me but I look at the industry for what it is today and it is a complete disgrace where the agencies consider the contributors to be nothing more than a financial liability.
133
« on: August 05, 2022, 12:32 »
My acceptance rate has been 95-100% for many years, now this week 80% is rejected for 'quality problems'.
This is not a 'quality' issue.
Yup. Same Same. AS the new SS.
134
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:23 »
AS the new SS
135
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:20 »
136
« on: July 28, 2022, 14:49 »
Formerly a hostage of Adobe Premiere and their insane monthly fees. Switched over to Da Vinci and would never go back.
137
« on: July 23, 2022, 16:16 »
I think yesterday is always the best time to upload.
Exactly. As the old saying goes... The best time to plant an oak tree is twenty years ago.
139
« on: July 15, 2022, 10:01 »
I can't judge at all how buyers behave in general.
But since my office buys pictures, I can at least say something about it from my personal point of view.
We had one customer account with Shutterstock and one with Adobe Stock. Today we only have the one at AS. We cancelled the one at Shutterstock 3 years ago.
Why?
Well, it's mostly because of the search results.
If you have to make ads in a certain region for the target group in that region with products typical for that region, it is important to be able to find images that fit that target group.
Two examples:
Search term "house"
If I search for images of houses on shutterstock, I get a lot of images that do not show any houses in Germany/middle Europe at first glance. It doesn't matter whether I choose the German or the English language for the search. The results are almost identical. So I have to search much longer at shutterstock to find the right images for my region.
If I search for pictures of houses at AS, I can set the search region. If I search for houses in German, I get very specific houses that fit here. If I change the search to USA, I get mostly houses that look American. Here the search is clearly better.
Search term "family"
Here the same problem arises as with the search term "house". With shutterstock I get a lot of images that just don't fit my region. Here, too, the search results at AS are clearly better adapted to my search region.
From my point of view, the algorithm at AS is much better than that of shutterstock. In addition, from my point of view, shutterstock is more internationally oriented, while AS is more at home in the European market. However, I cannot judge at all how the search results look like in other countries. And of course I have no idea if other customers see this problem as well and therefore change the agency.
Perhaps learn how to use a search bar on any agency. "house' overall does yield houses in America, at least from where I am sitting. "house germany" yields nothing but houses in Germany. Common sense.
140
« on: July 14, 2022, 18:13 »
[/quote]
Overall I tend to agree more with Cobalt above. Or at the very least, a certain type of customer certainly do.
[/quote]
Cobalt is more often than not clueless about a buyers point of view. If one continually follows this "community" nonsense then yes the buyers keep moving to where the "best content" is.
Cascoly is perhaps more accurate in stating...
1. no evidence this is true - and buyers w subscriptions are unlikely to switch
2. how does one determine which site has 'best content'
Pick any topic of your choosing and IS, GI, SS, and AD will give you pretty much the same content. If you are an editorial buyer you'd most likely run to AL, IS, GI, and SS, and once again get pretty much the same content. If you really want cool, hip, trendy content that ages very quickly you'd go to Stocksy, and again you could find incredibly similar imagery at the other sites for a fraction of the price, albeit they might not be image exclusive.
Long gone are the days where agencies lock you into a contract that ensures they have the best content. Long gone are the days where any photographer in his/her right mind would be exclusive to any agency and this in my view includes image exclusive. Long gone are the days where there is any loyalty from any agency or contributor. Very very very few of us produce content that is the "best content".
141
« on: July 14, 2022, 10:33 »
In the beginning almost every entry level photographer was making 4-6K with 3000 images. Many of them would not have met the skill level required to pass the brutal editing imposed for acceptance of images at the time, thus microstock with no editing criteria and ridiculously low pricing for unlimited use brought us to where we are today. ten cents on the dollar and the same goes with video.
Photos and video today are a mass produced commodity. Top quality today gets rejected in the roulette wheel of 'approved' and total junk gets 'approved' on the same roulette wheel that should reject the content. It's a complete crap shoot.
There is an old saying "water seeks it's own level" and the industry as a whole and the masters who control it have found that level. Let's be real, contributors are in an era where we accept 0.10c royalties from corporate agencies, we sell our content for $5 to corporate agencies for unlimited free downloads under the guise that it will lead to more downloads when in fact it is for their marketing needs, not yours.
142
« on: July 12, 2022, 20:58 »
Respectfully, investing in gear is not worth it today. For example, I went to do a shoot for two days in a town near me, I know there is demand for content. My gas bill alone for two days in a campervan was $120. This does not include my time for photography X2 days or post production, metadata etc X2-3 hours. Even assuming a RPD of 0.50c that requires 240 downloads just to break even on gas alone. Food for thought.
143
« on: July 04, 2022, 16:33 »
I did a test run of 10 images with Wirestock. The keywording was horrible. I will give them a big miss.
144
« on: June 18, 2022, 16:03 »
In today's market I would never be exclusive to any agency. I would not even be image exclusive to any agency.
Financially it makes no sense at all to be exclusive or image exclusive.
145
« on: June 14, 2022, 11:03 »
Did they also promise review times within two months or review times without constant emails reminding them?
146
« on: May 29, 2022, 09:16 »
Turn off all of your automatic updates. Each and every time Adobe auto updates I have nothing but troubles. If you don't update then it seems to be fine.
The other option is to use alternative programs. I hear very good reports about Affinity. For Premiere alternative there is DaVinci. I switched over to DaVinci some time ago and I would never go back to Adobe Premiere, after going through the new learning curve I actually prefer DaVinci.
And yes, the dreaded customer service at Adobe. It's really horrible.
147
« on: May 27, 2022, 18:04 »
Can anyone translate all that please? Are we not having anymore of those cent sales or not?
This $10 thing is just a red herring, pure deception. What I have noticed with IS is that exclusive or not the royalties are pure garbage. The only difference between the two is the actual selling price $13 or $36 for photos and $66 or $188 for video. Combine the ever changing game of meeting targets and the subscription royalty and premium access you always get a small amount of royalty. Being exclusive with any agency these days is the kiss of death. I used to be pro exclusive but that is no longer my view. I would not recommend anyone to be exclusive to any agency.
148
« on: May 27, 2022, 16:04 »
I can only upload photos from their platform only, then they sit there for weeks on end and never get inspected. I can't upload anything via FTP. I shows me that the files are on their server, but there is no content at all when I look at their platform. From my point of view 123RF is a complete waste of time.
149
« on: May 27, 2022, 09:42 »
From the perspective of a former exclusive video provider and soon to be a former photo provider...
... Sorry Getty Images, you lost me with your greed. I make much more spreading my video content out to three additional agencies and could not be bothered going through your arduous process of uploading for mere pennies, even at $10 it's not worth the effort.
Too little way too late.
That is my 0.02c
150
« on: February 22, 2022, 13:32 »
I don't care
That makes two of us.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
