|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57
1376
« on: February 26, 2009, 17:04 »
Just heads up for those in the waiting line, the Canon 5D mark II is now back in stock at BH photo, with free shipping and a $200 rebate (for US people)
Canon 5D mark II
Back out of stock now.  The $200 rebate requires purchase of the body, a lens (one of a specific 4), and a 580 EX II all on the same receipt. Great deal if you were going to buy them all anyway, otherwise not so hot.
1377
« on: February 26, 2009, 17:01 »
For me(a newbie of 5 months) the algorythm is easy
Rejection=learning opportunity
This is true for me at iStock, and perhaps a few other agencies. But I submit to 8 agencies, and when they all take an image except Fotolia, which rejects it for "technical reasons", what am I supposed to think? The reviewers at Fotolia are so good that they see something wrong that no other reviewer can find? Or is the more obvious answer the right one? Maybe when you're no longer a newbie, your algorithm might change: Rejection=learning opportunity, except Fotolia = coin toss.
1378
« on: February 26, 2009, 13:32 »
Yep, that's pretty much been my experience as well. Fotolia "support" is pretty much worthless for any rejection questions, as are the rejection "reasons", and their forums.
I've stopped UL'ing; it just isn't worth the bother.
1379
« on: February 26, 2009, 12:39 »
They seemingly like to toy around with most people to make sure they are really serious (or some reason), and reject the first app. But they probably didn't want to risk upsetting (and possibly losing) you! 
1380
« on: February 26, 2009, 12:34 »
The application review is much more about whether you have the artistic and photographic skills needed to create stockworthy images, and much less about the technical aspects. It is very common for images "accepted" in the initial application to be rejected for technical reasons when re-submitted later.
It's a bit of a learning process, but overall iStock "inspectors" are the most consistent of any micro, IMO. That doesn't mean I don't get rejections I disagree with. But more often than not (and certainly more often than at any other agency I submit to) I do understand the reason.
Except during my first 3 months on SS, IS has been my #1 earner each month, typically accounting for about 1/3 of my income. It's worth it, in my experience, to become familiar with what the inspectors are looking for, and correct accordingly.
Spend some time reading the IS "Critique" forum. Many of the posters are quite helpful, though a few seem too eager to tear down others rather than offer genuinely helpful advice. If you have a rejection you don't understand, create a thread and ask. You might get some helpful answers.
1381
« on: February 24, 2009, 10:47 »
Yep, the email made all the difference. I am definitely going to drop the 7 other agencies I contribute to, and sign up exclusively with the agency at which I have the worst AR (probably under 50%, compared to 70%-90+% at all others), and (therefore) my smallest portfolio. I mean, it just makes sense, doesn't it? Fotolia generally accounts for around 10% of my monthly income. Surely I'll see an increase of 10x once I go exclusive with them, right?
1382
« on: February 21, 2009, 14:28 »
Paid today via Paypal; requested on the 9th! 
1383
« on: February 21, 2009, 13:14 »
I just had a couple rejects on DT for "overabundant category"(s). I can't remember ever getting such a reject from DT. I also had a lighting reject last week that I don't really agree with but no big deal.
Same here. I asked about the "overabundant" rejection and was told (very politely) there were too many images on the subject with too few sales. So I looked it up. There were 8 images on the subject with 43 sales. Seems like DT is really getting tough. 
1384
« on: February 18, 2009, 14:10 »
It will be interesting to see how many contributors become exclusive. As someone else wrote, I think you'd have to be crazy to become exclusive at Fotolia. I'd sooner quite microstock than do that.  Too bad about the almost 10% drop in commissions. But I guess they just weren't making enough with the current rates. After all, they know it's a gamble to lower our rates. Some will leave, most will not. Hopefully they can use the money wisely to bring new buyers (not buyers from other sites) into microstock, & Fotolia.
1385
« on: February 17, 2009, 17:34 »
DT isn't a worthwhile agency? They are almost always my #3 earner. If they aren't worthwhile, that means (to me) that only 2 agencies are. Seems a bit odd to me.
You need to read more carefully: I didn't say DT was not a worthwhile agency.
I've edited my orignal post so that nobody else can misinterpret what I wrote.
Well, I'd say you need to write more carefully!  Your original words are in my previous post, so I'll let others read and decide who needs to be more careful. But I'm glad to see that your meaning wasn't what you originally wrote. If English isn't your first language, then I can certainly understand the mistake, and I'm sorry I couldn't figure out your meaning.
1386
« on: February 17, 2009, 16:50 »
Also, and I hate to be the one to tell you, if you're having trouble getting images accepted at DT you have a big problem: they have a high tolerance for bland stuff, and pretty much accept anything. If you can't get an image accepted at DT, it's going to be difficult to get it accepted at a worthwhile agency.
DT isn't a worthwhile agency? They are almost always my #3 earner. If they aren't worthwhile, that means (to me) that only 2 agencies are. Seems a bit odd to me. I don't know about them pretty much accepting anything, either. They may not be as picky as Fotolia (but then, who is?), but they've rejected enough of my stuff that I know they don't "pretty much accept anything". But they are slightly more accepting than say iStock, for example.
1387
« on: February 17, 2009, 14:03 »
I am really sorry to be having to resurrect this issue again, but as of Friday the 13th (ironic?) my JUI and Photos.com sales aren't showing up again.
Since I generally have at least some of them every day I am betting the "reporting issue" is back.
Maybe not, Lisa. At least, it seems not for me. I just looked and I see JUI sales every day of the 13th - 17th except for the 15th. Photos.com sales have really slowed down for me; none reported since the 11th. But it seems unlikely that only photos.com would stop reporting (though not impossible). Hopefully it's all just a variation in sales, and not reporting problems again.
1388
« on: February 04, 2009, 17:02 »
1389
« on: February 04, 2009, 12:16 »
but if Matt made a visual error with his laptop, how many reviewers are working with one sitting by the pool
Reviewers are required to have a calibrated CRT monitor of high enough quality.
or lcd monitor.
Patrick H.
Including Fotolia?
1390
« on: February 03, 2009, 14:31 »
Same here on my calibrated $400 monitor. Too much eye shadow, though.
1391
« on: February 02, 2009, 17:52 »
This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc). That well may be what iStock does (and you would certainly know), however you can't blame anyone for "interpreting" the agreement in that way, since that's what it states: (i) iStockphoto shall remove the applicable Accepted Exclusive Content from the Site within thirty (30) days of the termination of this Agreement; If that isn't what iStock intended, then perhaps they need to change the contract. Because as it is written, they certainly have the legal right to remove all exclusive content, as stated.
1392
« on: January 30, 2009, 19:39 »
Thanks - this will help me figure out the boatload of rejections there. 
Not really!  I've stopped paying any attention to Fotolia rejections. Among all the agencies I contribute to, there's are the only rejections I simply ignore. Too bad; their sales can be very good.
1393
« on: January 30, 2009, 18:38 »
It's sort of hidden, though easy to find once you know about it. Click on the "My Files" tab, and you'll see the list of your accepted files. Scroll to the bottom, and click on the link that reads "View deleted files". There you'll find the rejected files, along with their assigned numbers. Simple, no? 
1394
« on: January 30, 2009, 17:17 »
Fotolia just sent me a file number of the ones that were not approved leaving me scratching my head trying to figure out which ones they were. Lisa is so right; Fotolia's reviews are a lottery. I've seen so many examples of technically and artistically great images rejected there (and some not very good images accepted). To find out the rejection reason, you need to make a note of the image #, then click on "Member Home" which shows you your inbox. There you'll find a "Photographed Declined" message with the rejection "reason". If you have multiple rejections, click on one of the mail links to open the message and compare the image #. The most likely reasons are "Quality of Photo" and "Type of Photo" (both of which are fairly meaningless and completely not helpful in my experience). "Overabundance" might be an indication that that type of photo will be difficult to get approved there (but not always; again, it often is up to the reviewer).
1395
« on: January 27, 2009, 10:49 »
It seems to me that iStock is far more tolerant of criticism than are, say, DT and (ha!) FT. The only place I've seen more critical posts allowed than iStock is at StockXpert. But it shouldn't be surprising that any business would be likely to do something about posts and/or people that they feel are doing harm to their bottom line. The difference is in how far they are willing to stretch it, and iStock IMO is fairly liberal in that regard.
1396
« on: January 22, 2009, 16:25 »
This is so open to abuse it is pitiful. I can just see reviewers giving their friends and other reviewers plenty of excellent ratings. Don't see how you could control it without some pretty close monitoring.
From the published numbers I can find the overall rating for the entire database is something like:
excellent 89,463 3%
good 2,314,937 85%
ok 336,552 13%
I've got 187 imagese with NO excellent ratings. If I were average I should have at least 5 on a port that size. Maybe this is why I have not sold a single image in over 2 months. Getting close to saying good-bye to these guys.
fred
If it makes you feel any better, I have more than 2x as many images as you, and still not a single "excellent" rating. I should have over a dozen based on the "average" stats. I do have the 13% "ok" images, though!
1397
« on: January 22, 2009, 14:11 »
Songs are protected by copyright, but you can legally use, like, 6 notes of a song under "fair use". (But please note, IANAA!) I think in general the answer is that use of a map as the main subject would be subject to copyright. But some uses, on a case by case basis, should be allowable. IMO, the image shown above would fall under "fair use". Such a small portion, with almost no details, IMO does not harm the creator. But maybe I'd feel differently if I were a cartographer?
1398
« on: January 21, 2009, 23:13 »
Hey, no problem at all, m@m! And wouldn't you know it, on the very post that I write it says "New Member" by my name, it disappears! Ha!
1399
« on: January 21, 2009, 22:31 »
Actually, it was Anton9 asking the question, not me. Even though it says "New Member" by my name, I've actually been reading microstockgroup for a couple of years (I just never signed up until last year).
1400
« on: January 21, 2009, 19:06 »
Good advice, goldenangel! I agree.
Pages: 1 ... 51 52 53 54 55 [56] 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
