|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 79
1351
« on: February 06, 2015, 00:46 »
i dont know, my sales are superb this week and are stronger and stronger every week, today i have 100 subs and 20 od, superb, go shutter, go shutter
my best sellers goes 6-7 a day
is here any heavy stock contributor with 500 commercial upload per month?
That might be one way to make ss really work, is to produce a very large number of files.
I can produce 200 files maximum and that includes everything, video,Micro,Macro,exclusive files etc...so I doubt I could ever send more than 10-15 a week to ss.
500 a month is what I see studios produce or people who have staff or family to help them every day. I think andresr said somewhere that his team and him create around 600 stock files a month.
[/b] i suppose if you are a grand-dad and you have children and children's children, you could put them all to slave labor and have them pose for you. much like the old famer who made lots of children so they would have them work in the fields. ironic, isn't it? microstock is the one modern (business) where having alot of children pays off ... in pennies 
1352
« on: February 05, 2015, 14:35 »
1353
« on: February 05, 2015, 14:30 »
1354
« on: February 05, 2015, 14:28 »
I don't understand why someone who is stating their OWN info get voted down. I also don't understand why Gbalex and Mantis make very similar posts and Gbalex gets downvoted and Mantis gets so many + his post is in a box. Nothing against Mantis. I +1 both him and Gbalex cuz they basically said the same thing about flood of new lousy images burying good work. And +1 Ron too cuz this is a thread about our sales and he posted his sales experience.
Some people around here use the +/- system like spoiled kids instead of adults and professionals.
honestly i don't even look at + - thing. i just speak my piece . but pixie u r right about too much crappy and cause a microstock constipation . perharps this explain the sudden blockup of sales these 2 months . is it because buyers are fedup with seeing flowers and birds and cats and field,etc and just going to fotolia or istock again>?>> or is it just buyers have already downloaded all they want in the microstock smorgraboard (sorry spelling may be wrong but u know what i mean). also re what someone said before, mantis or whoever, we look at the SOD getting us a motherlode when in fact if u remove the SOD, the sales are really dismal. but i cant help doing a 180 about what i said here, and for believing what other ppl say in ss forum or here that ss is going to recover after the clients come back from their christmas vacation. the buyers have all gone to the AGM and became shareholders and do not have to rummage through pages of crappy snapshots to find what they need in your/my port.
1355
« on: February 04, 2015, 15:49 »
I still think it is a bug of somekind. I tried searching "bird" and "breast" in their system and the result was over 3000 images...
you wouldn't also search for cock , chicmen , and balls , did you? cock , chicmen , according to wiki a male gallinaceous bird, usually male chicken (Gallus gallus). balls, as in those things that tennis players love to grab four in one hand
1356
« on: February 04, 2015, 12:13 »
all in all, the biggest shock is that in this modern world of so many years of advertising, there are still some people who thinks that everything you see on TV or advertising is real.
They don't think that way when they see Tom Cruise as a spy , or Nicole as a street-walker or whoever as Jack the Ripper. No one says, OMG you know that Johnny Depp is a serial killer or a drug addict or a pusher (Blow).
The problem is not the model, it's the public. A public that still thinks that Arf is a real life size dog and not a hand puppet, and that all that blue screen work and CG is truly real .
The problem is we wean a society that believes everything is not just play acting, but for real.
This is what happens when you bring a child up never to be able to relate to the real people, but more to a computer screen or a touch screen or a smart phone.
How many times do you see people walking in the street with their face in the smartphone instead of walking with their face forward looking at you and other passers-by??? Even in the supermarket they don't notice you , and you have to literally push your way pass them as they block the path with their cart or just walk on the pavement side by side never thinking about moving aside to let people go by.
And they don't even know how to say "excuse me" or smile.
1357
« on: February 02, 2015, 11:59 »
Subs were designed banking on People not using them up. Based on actuary tables from Insurance companies. If everyone got sick at the same time. Insurance Companies would go Bust Overnight.
so true, or like your telephone subscription or worse , a smartphone mobile plan of $100 monthly which even i on the basis phone plan pays for having a mobile which i use about 10 times a month. the most costly bill in my expense account is my mobile.
1358
« on: February 01, 2015, 14:17 »
I really, really, can't see this as being "good news" for contributors in any shape or form. I reckon BaldricksTrousers has the measure of it when he likens the situation to that of the UK dairy farmers. The problem we all have as well is that any changes at any of the agencies tend to ripple through the whole industry here. They're all looking for a way to maximise their profits. In general, from what I've seen, that tends to come from our cut in some way.
so right you  in any takeover the idea is to kill the kid. even something as impressive as ss taking over big , we see big sinking like a stone . i am even surprised it is still in the bottom mid tier. even the regular sellers of big are gone now, all blue in the face when big brother ss sat on their face. takeover just means someone ran away with the money and left everyone without their drawers.
1359
« on: February 01, 2015, 14:12 »
as the eagles say when hell freezes over.
1360
« on: February 01, 2015, 14:10 »
you mention SOD has dropped to nothing months. which to me tells that your uptick in ss was not due to regular sales like majority of us who consistently make payout with regular dls. so, removing SOD as someone pointed out before, SOD is not a barometer to measure success as it is more like your life-saving monthly. i am wrong or not, that your sales without SOD in both ft and ss are not regular. i say this because as bolsher say is true, ss is consistent. all others is flash in the pan. correct me if wrong.
1361
« on: January 30, 2015, 20:29 »
1362
« on: January 30, 2015, 15:10 »
A 50mp sensor seems like overkill to me.
Everybody has different needs. For me, more megapixels means I make more money. If you shoot micro, sports, weddings, or whatever, you probably don't need 50MP.
But I don't want a 50MP DSLR. I'm waiting on Sony's 50MP A-series.
What subject area do you need it for, Paulie?
Landscape/Cityscape
If you shoot micro you may not need anything more than a camera phone these days.
so true. sort of laugh when i read the required cameras in some of the agencies. one site even insist the buyer should know which camera u use.
i tell them, then they better expect to pay a lot more than pennies to us per download. with the kind of money you make and the type of lighting even a PNS is too much for microstock. 50MP is more than overkill. like using a Ferrari to drive across town to do your shopping when a secondhand boneshaker is all u need.
1363
« on: January 30, 2015, 13:40 »
I've got some right duffers in my port and I'm sure everybody has. This isn't art, although some would like to think it is. Having said that, there is room for art of course but I'll bet there are images of a pencil sharpener out there that outsell images of some elfin girl prancing through a wheat field back lit by a setting sun.
We have a saying in England: Where there's muck there's brass. Loosely translated, crap makes money. The trick is finding the right sort of crap and making it look fit for purpose.
exactamento lady gaga, miley cyrus, justin beiber, etc sells more tickets than pavoratti even when he was alive. the cardboard tasting fast muck at the foodcourt sells more per minute than your best restaurant. microstock is no different. as someone said many years ago here , Ansel Adams would be a pauper if he was in microstock. it's like the newsprint , we were told write Primary 5 (British school) English ; don't try to write anything "vague" . Even Bob Dylan's lyrics would confuse the newsprint readers. microstock is no different. creative depth of field would be considered out of focus, and low sunlight cast would be consider wrong WB.
1364
« on: January 30, 2015, 12:56 »
When you upload the same picture on the same moment on SS and DT chances are that it already sold a dozen time on SS before it gets approved on DT
and by the time dt get 1 dl the same file on ss would be close to 50 dl what's worst is the top ranking color still earn pennies at dl when a single file earn up 120 dollars at ss back to why so long to review. i imagine the boss working all by himself in a basement reviewing everything himself with such a poor performance record , why bother. even more silly is the emails telling you to donate your work that has not sold after 3 yrs. even ss does not waste your time this way, and there we get monthly payouts unfailingly.
1365
« on: January 29, 2015, 18:26 »
Unfortunately all solutions are at SS management side. Not at all in contributors hands... I'd say that the most significant problem in this diminishing sales is overabundant crap images acceptance. And, stupid search which gives advantage to cheaper images from newbies who are in 25c or 33c tiers. Established contributors have to deal with wall which comes up to doubling portfolio size if they want to keep their earnings pace.
Who needs that kind of photo?
as all here know, i am one of the biggest ss objector when it comes to their problem with us. but here i have to be pro ss re: your statement about overabundant crapwho needs that kind of photo bit. the way i see it, u should be happy that if it is true. the more overabundant crapwho needs that kind of photo being approved ... the better for you the better for me. the downloaders are not blind, they can see the difference. i wish u are right, as the more overabundant crap ss accepts the better my portfolio is going to look.
1366
« on: January 29, 2015, 16:02 »
I am not into conspiracy theories but do we know if dpc was part of the adobe acquisition? I mentioned this before but DPC could have been done with foresight into a sale of FT. Sell FT and keep a competing agency called Dollar Photo Club. Wasnt it supposedly a completely different agency separate and distinct from FT? If this is true it shows the FT " i wanna have my cake and eat it too" attitude. This would explain why they opted in all of our content without our permission and under pressure that dpc was a separate entity they were legally forced to give an opt out. This stinks.
my thoughts exactly ... which prompted me to say it 's an iceberg or the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train
1367
« on: January 29, 2015, 14:22 »
My single biggest license was just short of $4 ($3.92) on deposit photos thus I know I will always be poor 
Plus it was refunded...
my first sales was in the late 80s and i got paid 5000
rupees
now, fast forward 35 years and we get paid $.29 
well , a little more pennies than 29cts. but really, no kidding. we were making tons more when we were the new kid off the block with our new 35mmSLR not really knowing much considering what we know today. who was it that wrote that book titled ".... parachute" whatever in those days telling us what? the more experience we get the less money or more likely we are to be put out into the field like redundant race horses??? then again, it's the same thing for everyone. i remember being told by some pros of microsoft (microsoft, not microstock) that they were earning half of what they were earning 4 years prior. and this was like 10 years ago when i met those ppl. hate to think how much they earn today.
1368
« on: January 29, 2015, 13:58 »
I will be honest about this, if management at Fotolia changes, I will try to get back in. Agree with Mantis.
or it could be that the management with Chad are the ones who gave fotolia the idea and the deal could mean even less money than dpc. did no one not remember the consensus...things get worse, never better ... for microstockers. why should this be a lifesaver? it could be the iceberg .
1369
« on: January 28, 2015, 16:37 »
My single biggest license was just short of $4 ($3.92) on deposit photos thus I know I will always be poor
Plus it was refunded...
my first sales was in the late 80s and i got paid 5000 rupees
1370
« on: January 28, 2015, 16:20 »
so why does this mean ? Is fotolia becoming CreativeCloud or vice versa? i am not familiar with C C , can someone explain? when they say marketplace for creatives to buy and sell high-impact assets, find talent,
are they talking about becoming a new rival to ss? or just another wave of vapor like ( here fill in your own subjective choice from the agencies on the right column here>>>>>)
1371
« on: January 28, 2015, 13:18 »
i don't know about illustration but about pictures this is my experience:
crappy studio isolation = 98% acceptance rate
studio composition = 60% acceptance rate
outdoors and landscape = 10% acceptance rate
as u all know me for one of ss biggest critic here, i have to say there is a reason why #3 is 10% vs crappy isolation 98% perharps u mean crappy as in subject matter, but a poor isolation will get u 100% rejection too. as for isolation being 98% acceptance, it's obvious because like it or not, isolation even of crappy (for you maybe ) objects make the most money for many of ss-ers. that's what buyers want. i have images that took me some creative work that sells 0 while an isolation that took 0 mind other than plop it on white board and lighting it properly so there is no shadow and clean edge etc that out sells many of the stuff that took time to create. so why bother wasting time when u know crappy isolation sells? u will be like a frustrated cordon-bleu chef working in the golden M and cussing how the food taste like cardboard .
1372
« on: January 27, 2015, 16:52 »
there is also the rich apparent (no, not rich parent, although it applies too) in first world countries esp NAm where money grows on trees (ie bank dispenser machines and credit card) where many have maxed-out credit cards keeping up with the joneses . so much so that people in the 3rd world think you are loaded because you live in a nice house, drive a sports car, travel to tropical countries for winter,etc not realising that 90% of it is borrowed money. OTOH, in the poorer countries, the hut and the land with fruit trees are all bought with cash... no incidence of Prada to Nada in their case. so really who is rich er? as the Latinos highly regard the Gringos as (the "white" foreigners with lots of money); if only they knew that many are really bankrupt
1373
« on: January 27, 2015, 16:00 »
"Soon Shutterstock will only have artists from poorer countries, as the rest of us can't live on the income we receive, and will be forced to use our talents elsewhere."
+1000
they have been Farming those countries for a few years.
Poorer countries? I am from the Balkans and I can tell you that food/clothing prices are the same or higher than in the US. Yes, we have a crap but cheap healthcare system and housing/renting is much cheaper but the prices of the main commodities are getting more and more similar across the globe. The main difference is in wages.
yes, so right u r. that is why in those countries where it is said to be "cheap to retire" there is a wide rich-poor disparity where the guy who can afford a DSLR is driving a Citroen while right outside his apartment which is all fenced up with 10 ft iron railings are street people rushing for carton boxes each night for their bed. the 3rd world is not poor; only the elites with connections are rich while the majority scrape for a day's meal.
1374
« on: January 26, 2015, 14:11 »
yes, i wonder too Mantis...5 days left and unless some single big 85,105 dollar earning happens it looks like a dump  the gaps of 00 days are getting more, and i am beginning to look at my activity earnings with a little cynical look. as someone said, if u remove the single large sales, it really does not look like ss is doing better... actually worse. maybe they should spend less time pleasing shareholders and more time getting more or newer clients. do we look out for the dude running away with the bank soon, like our old friend sh*t istock???
1375
« on: January 25, 2015, 15:45 »
it has come to a saturation point too. they all look the same (ie lighting) except the women are different. and really, which men looking at these poster care what lighting you use ?
it's the same for all those shoots of famous hot babes by GQ , FMH, Vogue,etc . no matter who the celebrity or model, the lighting is the same .
it's as bad as it has come with microstock as well. anyone can do the job, so why would the organization pay for a well-known name when any photography 101 student could set up the lights to do the shoot.
if you look at all the shoots on youtube,etc of say a GQ shoot of a famous star ,etc... even the poses are same old same old boring model poses, and not a single photographer is coming up with anything interesting in terms of lighting or poses.
Pages: 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 [55] 56 57 58 59 60 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
