|
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 - Newsfocus1
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20
126
« on: July 26, 2015, 14:43 »
Of course, it could just be live footage of them feeding the images into their Reviewing Software........
127
« on: July 20, 2015, 07:35 »
I use an Epsom Perfection V300 Photo for scanning my old slides and negatives (looks like the current model is the V370). No problem getting results good enough to get accepted and sell on microstock -for editorial at least. Feel free to check my portfolio links for say SS/DT/123 etc - all the old (mainly) B/W images you see were done on this scanner (a few were done from prints -using the same machine). Just try and get the negs/slides and scanner as free of dust as possible before you scan to minimise retouching work afterwards. Worth noting that although this scanner only has a carrier for 35mm size negs/slides you can also scan 120 (medium) format - providing the area of interest falls within a 35mm size area. Quite a lot of my scans were done from larger format negatives by just sellotaping the neg in the correct position under the 35mm carrier. It's a bit trial and error but does work  Regards, David.
128
« on: July 07, 2015, 02:52 »
It does seem disrespectful, to say the least, to be now deleting accepted images from photographers that supported this new business. It's their agency and they can, of course, decide their own policy on what images they want - but why not just make this for new images going forward, not those already accepted? I never joined, but would be very upset if I had images that had been accepted and were getting sales (as some have reported here) only to now have them deleted. Canva had a lot of goodwill here -which they now seem to be putting at risk by this policy. Regards, David.
129
« on: July 06, 2015, 05:40 »
Sorry to see this Pete. I had to Wiki "jump the shark" (= decline in quality). Certainly, since I joined around 2008 the tone here has become more antagonistic and a number of members just seem to come here to pursue agendas against particular agencies or attack others who have a different opinion. A far cry from the helpful and friendly forum I (think) I remember back then -or is that just an age thing  Certainly I rarely post these days - I can just do without the grief of being jumped on if I say something somebody doesn't like or support an agency that isn't the flavour of the month. I post more on my own blogs or Google + now. That said, I still check this site several times a day for news and opinions and is the first place I head if there is a big microstock news story or change that might effect me because, if nothing else, the strength of MSG is that it is independent of any of the agencies and views can be stated free of any censorship by agency moderators. And, there are still many friendly and helpful people here and long may that continue. I've always enjoyed your interesting and thoughtful posts Pete and I hope you might reconsider your decision -and I am sure that I am not the only one. Kind regards, David.
130
« on: April 16, 2015, 09:24 »
I am not on IS
Ooops, sorry Ron - muddled you up with the OP! Regards, David.
131
« on: April 16, 2015, 08:56 »
The whole "public park" thing can be a bit misleading. What people perceive to be a public place is often, in fact, not. For example, most of the major parks in London (e.g. Regents Park) come under the control of the Royal Parks organisation and no commercial photography (or filming) is allowed without a) prior permission and b) paying a substantial fee for a permit.
Dog walkers get clobbered too - there's a 300 p/a fee if you want to walk dogs in the parks (if you are doing it for money).
Out of interest Ron, did they say if you could re-submit the images as Editorial? The only deactivation I ever had offered that as an option. Regards, David.
132
« on: January 08, 2015, 08:44 »
Got reply today, artarena is yaymicro api.
Thanks for the confirmation Dino. Just went back into Yay and, surprise, the API opt out for ArtArena is there now. Duly opted out. I'm OK with partner deals that get you the same (or more) commission than you would usually get - but with $0.30 or so for a standard (any zize) sale and $0.59 for an Extended Licence (after Yay's 50% cut) this was just stupid amounts (for single credit sales). The fact that my copyright notice was stripped and a (false) claim of ownership to ArtArena was inserted just added insult to injury. Surprised that Yay ever thought this was a good deal for their contributors. Regards, David.
133
« on: January 02, 2015, 14:50 »
^^ Thank's Jo Ann - I was only being humerous! But thank you for your comments on my SS port.
Thanks also to Ava for making me understand what you meant about the text box.
Meanwhile, anyone else finding their images on the site (and any ideas where they came from)? Regards, David.
134
« on: January 01, 2015, 08:00 »
Given the images currently there are about on par with most of the free sites out there, I think 99 cents is expensive
Probaly looking at my port there Jo Ann I seem to have an awful lot of images on the site -with no idea how they got there. If I had to guess I would say they are from Yay, as borne out by Ava's post above. I'd try dragging the image into the text box as Ava suggests -if I had the faintest idea what that means or how to do it! What's especially concerning is that none of my images are atributed to me (either user name or real name) and actually say "Owner: ArtArena". The prices are lousy and there is no way I can set my own higher prices because I am not registered as a contributor there. What is strange, though, is that Yay have always been very upfront about API partners, what the terms are and giving an individual opt out for each partner. Arena are not on their list of partners however. My guess, and it is just that, is that maybe the images have been distributed on to Arena by one of Yay's many partner sites -which would explain why it's not on their list. Anyone else got loads of images there or an alternative idea of where they came from? Guess, I'll have to contact Arena/Yay if nothing becomes clearer. Not what I needed on January 1st really -but a good chance to wish everyone here a very happy and successful 2015. Regards, David.
135
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:07 »
OMG I don't know why !!! Got to fix this !
is this link work ? http://shutterstock.com/g/juliedeshaies
thank you
Yes that link works Julie but not the SS link at the bottom of your posts. Check that you have your User ID NUMBER in your forum profile here (not your UserNAME). It's a common mistake which a lot (including me) have made here. I once had a bad few minutes when someone emailed me to say my SS account had dissapeared  Some of the port links require the number and some your name! Regards, David.
136
« on: November 30, 2014, 15:50 »
Getty is holding on to mucho dinero each month for as long as possible, undoubtedly investing it and making a nice return on what is actually other people's money.
Do you mean like every microstock agency has done since I can remember with the minimum payout of $100? Or do you just need to be anti IS and anti GI with every breath? Think about it for a moment SS requires you to sell 401 images (at the entry level) to get your minimum payout and you support that without complaining? Just sayin.
Just for information it's 300 -minimum payout is $75. And that assumes you only ever get basic sub sales -never mind the higher paying On Demand/ELs/ Single downloads. So, in reality, way less than 300. Regards, David.
137
« on: October 05, 2014, 07:48 »
When you wait until there are no birds visible in the sky -in case the reviewer mistakes them for sensor spots 
138
« on: September 15, 2014, 14:18 »
Thanks for the replies. I just double checked that I hadn't gone exclusive while sleepwalking but I'm still an indie -just a bug then I guess. Regards, David.
139
« on: September 15, 2014, 13:44 »
Probaly just a bug but I just uploaded an editorial image and got a tick box inviting me to nominate it to the Signature+ collection. I haven't seen anything here or on the Istock forum about this -so did I miss something? I ticked the box anyway, just to see what would happen really Anyone else know more about this? Regards, David.
140
« on: August 28, 2014, 03:11 »
I submitted 6 files just to test it out. My biggest gripe, when editing, is the mandatory country requirement. Since I live in the USA, I have to scroll all the way to the bottom of a very long list, for that choice. Either change that field to a "fill in", or I'm just going to start clicking on a country that starts with "A".
Really, who cares? Just get rid of that requirement.
No need to scroll down. A simple tip (which I think I got right here on MSG) is just press the first letter of the country you want a certain number of times. So for USA just press U six times, for Greece press G four times etc (I'm doing the number of times you press from memory so may be slightly out -but you get the idea!). This simple method works across any site (not just microstock) where you have to choose a country from an alphabetical list. You'll soon remember how many times to press for each country and be there virtually instantly. Thanks to whoever passed on that time saving tip! Regards, David.
141
« on: July 31, 2014, 09:40 »
Hi Drift, I can answer that for you as I had the exact same scenario a few months back -in my case for the free seafront annual airshow in Eastbourne (sadly in the news today for other reasons  ). Your resubmits with the note to the reviewer will almost certainly get rejected again "credentials required"! When you have calmed down (lol) drop an email to support with details of the airshow and a link to the airshow website/facebook etc to show it is a free public event. In my case, they checked out the airshow and agreed no credentials were needed -giving me a "credentials approved" reference number to add to my third resubmit. This is just letting the reviewer know that the event is OK to approve. I have used the same reference for further images from the Eastbourne show -without problems. Shutterstock couldn't have been more helpful and prompt in dealing with this and told me airshows would be looked at on a case by case basis in the future. Going forward, just email the credentials team at SS before submitting images of any other airshows so they can check it out and issue a reference number for the reviewer. Hope that helps. Regards, David.
142
« on: July 16, 2014, 08:15 »
10% increase.
The "new" subscription started yesterday for me. But i see only 1 day in stats"4th".
That's how it's always been. However, if you go to My Uploads, then click Image Subscriptions (NOT 'credit subscriptions') you'll be able to see what files sold when. (You may have to click on Last Sub dl twice or three times to see June's sales.)
Have a heart for that one! I didn't know you could do that. Many thanks. Regards, David.
143
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:01 »
OK, thanks. I thought you could just delete out your old number and save. Obviously not then. Regards, David.
144
« on: May 22, 2014, 06:05 »
Just to add that 123rf have their own (different) format for editorial captions and that some agencies do not require any specific format. Note also that Istock require you to mention any people visible in the image -no matter how small and insignificant (I've had initial rejections for images where I didn't even realise there were any people in the image!). I wrote a blog post about creating editorial captions which might interest anyone new to editorial images. Regards, David. http://shootingstock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/creating-captions-for-editorial-images.html
145
« on: May 22, 2014, 02:23 »
there is no way to remove a Credit Card from FAA by yourself
you need to contact their support (or close the account completely)
And if you doing it in advance you loose some (paid already) benefits
Their functionality needs some upgrade
I'm in the middle of a discussion with FAA support about this. I asked them to remove my stored credit card. They replied that they didn't store the credit card; their payment processor (Netbilling) did. I asked them to get Netbilling to remove it from their servers or tell me how to contact Netbilling to get that done. I asked as a security issue - I no longer let 99% of the places I do business with store a card number - and pointed out that this isn't at all an unusual request.
I don't want to close my account, just remove my credit card. Even Apple finally gave in on that one and let users remove the card from the iTunes account...
I just took a look at this. If you go to Behind The Scenes on your account and click on Premium Features you get details of your account with an Update Credit Card button. I tried it and got to a page where I could ammend (or remove, I presume) my card details then hit save. To be fair, I didn't actually go through this procedure, so maybe it blocks you from removing if you actually try it? But it should work, despite what you were told! Try that and let us know what happens. Regards, David. ETA I have used that feature to update my card details a few weeks back and that certainly worked fine.
146
« on: May 19, 2014, 06:03 »
Had a bunch of editorials rejected for "credentials required". I included a note that the event was public and credentials were not provided but they still rejected the images. It's not worth fighting them about. My other sites that take editorials took them all.
I hate this "credentials required" rule they have now. I've done well in the past with editorials shot at public events. Now it's almost impossible to get them accepted unless it's something obvious like a parade.
I've had this a few times recently as well. However, there was no fight involved - just an email to the submit address referencing the file numbers and explaining that it was a public event with no credentials required (maybe link to a website for the event for added clarity). Shutterstock couldn't have been more helpful with responses within 24hours giving me a reference number to add as a note to re-submits. All then accepted. The alternative, especially if you have a lot of images from an event you think might cause issues, would be to contact Credentials first with the appropiate info and get a "credentials approved" reference before submitting ( I haven't tried this myself). The problem is, as you said, unless it is something obvious like a public street parade the reviewers have no way of knowing if it is a restricted event requiring credentials or not. Regards, David.
147
« on: May 17, 2014, 13:37 »
as far as i know their backend CMS was custom coded by one of their co-founders, he's a skilled coder but their CMS was never meant to be scalable to such a huge number of files and users.
the only solution is a complete rewrite or porting the whole cr-ap to a bigger and more stable commercial CMS, but good luck with that ... not gonna happen anytime soon and as you noticed they're in total denial about performance and other technical issues ..
Thanks for that explanation. I just removed my credit card so they can't auto renew.
Thanks, that reminded me of something I was going to pass on for anyone interested. I hadn't realised/forgotten that they use auto renew until I got an email saying my card payment had been declined. Nothing sinister - I'd just had a new card issued by my bank (with a different card number). So for anyone like Mantis not wishing to renew -don't forget to remove your card details in good time from your account information. If, like me, you want to renew -don't forget to update your card details if you get a new one. The second email was more chilling. It stated that as I no longer had a premium account all my images (barring 25) would be deleted from FAA in three days time. It suggested re-ordering my images so that the ones I wanted to keep online were in the first 25 positions of my portfolio. With the free account you can have as many images uploaded as you want but only 25 available for sale at any one time. It doesn't seem to work the other way round though as the email definately said the excess images would be deleted from the site if going from paid to free account. If I'd been on holiday or not checked my emails for a few days, I would have found that over 400 images had been deleted. Maybe they just say "deleted" when they actually mean removed from sale? I certainly wouldn't have been pleased to find all that uploading time had been wasted! Regards, David.
148
« on: May 07, 2014, 02:20 »
That's new. A week ago you had to donate or disable. There was some grumbling on the forums about old editorial photos that didn't sell being more desireable as time goes on (cars and such) so maybe they changed it. Perhaps it is now just an alert to force you to make a decision to delete them on your own. I was kind of happy to see old files go since there are sooooo many on the site(s). No one wants to delete their non-sellers but many complain that there are too many images. The latest trend is to submit every image taken from a shoot and DT seems to be accepting them all. http://www.dreamstime.com/new-stock-photos-images
That was in a thread I started about this http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_37221 as I was starting to see my editorials being consigned to death row (having joined Dreamstime just over 4 years ago). Great news to see they have listened and changed the policy on this. It's nothing new (especially for editorial images) to get no action but then suddenly become relevant and useful when someone or something comes into the news. This change still gives people the chance to review their old files and take what action they feel best -but without the enforced death sentence. Good move. Regards, David.
149
« on: April 24, 2014, 01:56 »
150
« on: April 20, 2014, 02:52 »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
