|
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 - disorderly
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58
1376
« on: May 07, 2009, 01:56 »
Thanks for the update, Rahul. I like what you guys have done and look forward to getting even more detailed insights into my sales. Assuming Shutterstock can provide APIs to give you the information with minimum impact, this may turn out to be a win for both sides.
1377
« on: May 06, 2009, 13:49 »
One bit of this bit me hard. Their acceptance percentage is based on the number of acceptances divided by the number of uploads. That means that images you upload but delete before submission count against you. I've hurt my percentage by automating my upload to different sites, then deleting those images BigStock would reject for violating its rules against nudity or anything too suggestive. I've asked them to reevaluate their policy of counting deletions as rejections, but don't expect much.
1378
« on: May 03, 2009, 17:03 »
I include location information in both description and keywords for exterior shots. It's useful to the client both as a search parameter and to confirm that it's representative of a particular location. I had one client write to me on iStock to thank me for providing that info; they sell services to local governments and use stock images in their presentations. I've also had quite a few sales on Dreamstime that were found via a location search. I've even purchased a GPS to make it easier to capture precise location information to add my tagging, although I plan to delete the GPS data before I upload.
1379
« on: May 01, 2009, 23:48 »
I've never heard of anyone at SS getting their feathers ruffled over comments on another forum, as long as those comments were truthful. The only problem I can think of was over someone who was both abusive and lying through his teeth.
By the way, I've made almost exactly as much on Shutterstock and iStock since I started. One advantage of Shutterstock is that you aren't limited on uploads, so if you produce a lot, you can have a much bigger port there.
1380
« on: May 01, 2009, 19:06 »
Okay, this is weird. (Yeah, I know; we're talking Crestock. Weird goes with the territory.) Out of boredom I decided to upload a few pics to Crestock. I'd given up on them months ago after an almost perfect record of rejections, but what the heck? So I sent them the next ten in my portfolio. A few hours later I get an email that they've been reviewed. Nine out of ten were rejected, which didn't surprise me. What did was when I noticed that the one they took is available only in their small size: 1630 x 2454 pixels. The file I submitted is 2848 x 4288, the native resolution for my D300. So not only were the other nine unsafe at any speed, they had to shrink that last shot by two thirds to meet their standards!
Anybody else have this happen? Or am I just really, really lucky?
1381
« on: May 01, 2009, 11:57 »
Second best month ever. Well down from March, which was my BME thanks to an incredible performance at SS. | SS | 24.3% | -46.6% | | DT | 21.8% | +65.1% | BME | | iS | 17.7% | -16.5% | | Ftl | 12.7% | -5.1% | | SX | 9.3% | -.1% | | BigStock | 5.8% | -20.1% | | 123RF | 5.0% | +11.3% | | Cres | 2.0% | -18.1% | | CanStockPhoto | .7% | +46.8% |
1382
« on: April 12, 2009, 04:12 »
But these other pretenders... don't waste your time or your money. There is no secret bag of tricks to being successful. No magical shortcuts. The big secret that successful microstock photographers know is that there is no secret: Take good photos (well composed, properly lighted, low noise, sharp focus), keyword them accurately, and wait for them to attract buyers. End of story.
Not quite the end of the story. There's also the small matter of identifying types of images that clients can use and will pay money to get. The best flower pictures won't get accepted everywhere, and likely won't sell in large numbers where they do. Figure out what sells, and then find a way to make some of your own.
1383
« on: April 09, 2009, 00:33 »
I'm not sure what you mean by market penetration, or why you assume Fotolia is as successful as Shutterstock. But let's put that aside for a moment. My own experience is that Shutterstock brings in somewhere between 2x and 4x the revenue on a monthly basis. In part I'd say that's better marketing on Shutterstock's part. It's also that Fotolia accepts about half as many of my images as Shutterstock does.
It may also be a difference in their target markets; I believe Fotolia brings in more sales from Europe, where Shutterstock may be more of a balance between European and US customers. (I'm going by time of day of sales, as well as the data Fotolia used to provide on buyers.)
On the other hand, there may be contributors who see much better sales on Fotolia than on Shutterstock. My experience and yours may not be universal.
1384
« on: April 08, 2009, 08:59 »
The guy in question even went on to explain in the programme how he never touches the camera, isn't interested in cameras and wouldn't know how to set it up if asked to, after the shoot they showed him sitting with a woman who does all the editing in photoshop for him, so he actually has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the actual physical making of the photo, he is however still the legal copyright holder because he 'made' the photo. If he is indeed the copyright holder, it is only because he has Work For Hire contracts with his staff that make him so. Absent such a contract, the person who presses the shutter is the copyright holder according to US law.
1385
« on: April 07, 2009, 21:12 »
Oh, yeah, Brian Peterson.
http://www.ppsop.com/micr.aspx
Funny how none of his links at the bottom link to his work. Even more humorous that you can't google a Brian Peterson on any micro site. I'm sure I'd love to see his "award winning images" on iStock, but I can't seem to find them.
Those who can't do, teach.
Brian doesn't teach the class; Pete Saloutos does. And Pete does have portfolios on a few of the micros. Not big ones; he has 73 images and 355 sales on iStock after eight months of uploading. I wouldn't exactly use him as my guide to the world of microstock (you'd think he'd link directly to his portfolios if only for marketing purposes), but of course your mileage may vary.
1386
« on: April 07, 2009, 18:39 »
Re your other comment, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about in the USA the person that presses the shutter being the copyright holder,
Quoting from Apogee Photo Magazine: "Under the provisions of the revised copyright law, a photographer owns all rights to his pictures at the moment of creation. That means he and he alone owns the right to sell, use, distribute, copy, publish, alter or destroy his work of art. If you are a photographer, this ownership begins the moment you click the shutter." The article then goes on to discuss the Work For Hire exception.
1387
« on: April 07, 2009, 08:53 »
How about using the somewhat more generic term 'girl'. This can be a young woman as well as a teen or a child.
I'm sure you would need to DA it though during the upload process.
I did include girl as well as female. The question is whether someone looking for the other terms would find these photos of interest. Here's one example from the set:  Maybe it's my advanced age, but I do think of someone of junior high school age as a child.
1388
« on: April 06, 2009, 23:26 »
Would someone please tell me I'm overreacting? I'm going through my latest review notices from iStock. Some of the images were rejected for inappropriate keywords, others were accepted despite their disapproval of those same keywords. The keywords in question: women & child. The subject: a fifteen year old girl. Am I wrong to think that a client might find either one relevant, in addition to words like female and teenager?
Of course, a keyword rejection is a double whammy at iStock. Since I get so few upload slots in the first place, it's unlikely I'll ever have the chance to revisit the rejected images.
1389
« on: April 06, 2009, 13:19 »
I think of an image as a success if it produces more revenue than it cost to produce. For studio shoots, it's the aggregate of all the shots from the same shoot; if they add up to a profit on the day, I'm feeling pretty good about them.
1390
« on: April 06, 2009, 09:46 »
For me, they're a small additional income for a small additional effort. And they haven't done anything to tick me off, which is more than I can say for a couple of bigger earners (and one lesser one, to which I've stopped uploading). I'd call that a no brainer.
1391
« on: April 01, 2009, 09:45 »
| SS | 38% | +44% | BME | | iS | 18% | +18% | | Ftl | 11% | -6% | | DT | 11% | +19% | | SX | 7% | -18% | | BigStock | 6% | +101% | BME | | 123 | 3% | -19% | | Cres | 2% | +60% | BME | | Can | .4% | -60% |
Overall, an increase of 19% over February, which was my previous BME. I'm uploading to the top seven on my list, having given up on Crestock (close enough to 100% rejections as to not matter) and CanStock (deleting anything that hasn't sold in the past two years).
1392
« on: March 17, 2009, 09:18 »
I submit actively to nine sites, and have a significant number of images on four more. Seven bring me regular payouts; the other two are sufficiently easy to submit to that I keep at it, hoping against hope they'll justify the effort one day. The main thing is to streamline and automate your upload process. Once you've done that, the incremental effort for a new site won't feel so daunting. The exception of course is iStock, but they've always been exceptional.
1393
« on: March 17, 2009, 07:11 »
iStock was my top earner from the beginning. That changed a little over a year ago, as they started to slip and my Shutterstock sales took off. Now it's no contest; SS makes me between two and three times what iStock does. Still, they're 16% of my total and holding on to second place, so I keep uploading.
iStock is the classic joke: the food's awful and the portions are so small. I hate the upload process, but hate the fact that I'm limited to 20 a week. I'm almost 2000 images behind there now, and it's only going to get worse. I'm a long way from my next canister, and that fabled 25 uploads a week...
1394
« on: March 12, 2009, 19:15 »
Sorry, but I don't miss him in the least. I had to endure him for far too long on the Shutterstock forums before the guys in charge finally cried "enough". I know society frowns on speaking ill of the dead, but that doesn't mean we have to endure a whitewash.
1395
« on: March 09, 2009, 11:24 »
Sorry, FD, but it is most definitely not a fact. Facts are verifiable; what you have here is a speculation based on a premise. That premise may indeed be based on experience, which is based on facts. But claiming that a future action will have a particular outcome, unless based on something immutable like the laws of physics, is not and never will be a fact. No matter how good your reasoning ability, no matter how likely your claim is to be true, it's not a fact. It's your belief, and it may be mine as well, but that's all it is.
1396
« on: March 06, 2009, 19:01 »
How do you see what images have sold in the dollar bin? I have gotten notifications that some have been moved over the past couple of weeks but don't see them in my daily sales. Where should I look?
Go to your uploads page. Look for the Currently Viewing selection. Change Active/pending files to Active dollar files. Click on Refresh Data. Et voila!
1397
« on: March 06, 2009, 11:49 »
Yes, I've been paid. Twice in fact, via PayPal. But like many of you, I stopped uploading over an almost perfect record of rejections. If they don't want my awful pictures, I guess I'll send them somewhere else. 
1398
« on: March 04, 2009, 10:53 »
Another vote with the majority. Dreamstime is well run, produces good results and communicates before making dramatic changes. Sometimes we don't like their decisions, and sometimes the outcry has caused them to reconsider.
My only complaint, and it's a minor one, is that I believe their minimum payout is a bit high for the level of sales they deliver. I'm at the stage where I get a payout every month from the other majors. Dreamstime is hit or miss for me; sometimes I make it, sometimes I don't.
1399
« on: March 03, 2009, 23:41 »
Boy, if I were exclusive, I'd be seriously pissed right about now...
Why? That's simply the risk you take when you put all your eggs in one basket. It's hardly a surprise for IS to go down, it happens quite frequently, and it's something that any exclusive would obviously have factored into their calculation.
I wouldn't call that obvious at all. Moreover, I bet there are a lot of exclusives who hadn't given it much thought before an incident like this. Just because something can be predicted doesn't mean it will be, at least not by everybody.
1400
« on: March 03, 2009, 21:36 »
Boy, if I were exclusive, I'd be seriously pissed right about now...
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
