|
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 - Tryingmybest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 23
151
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:38 »
152
« on: June 30, 2015, 12:06 »
As I see the site, the full terms of service are still the Sept 17 2013 version (and I cleared Chrome's browser data to be sure). So the "see the full terms of service" from the blog doesn't really mean much yet.
I don't see anything bad there with two possible exceptions.
1. If the lowered payout is indicating that some big change in earnings (i.e. the BigStock royalty schedule) is coming soon. I think that's unlikely and that it's more likely that new contributors are discouraged and walk away and they're clearly looking to boost their contributor base. I suspect that's an insurance policy for them if they p*ss off existing contributors.
2. Using editorial as commercial with no additional liability to the photographer. If they promise to defend any lawsuit filed against us, then it's good, but saying we're not incurring any new liability doesn't stop someone from suing us and then we have to defend ourselves if SS doesn't step in (the way an insurer would). I would look at the details of the Terms of Service except that they haven't posted them.
Thank you for the reasonable interpretation. This legal mumbo jumbo is such a pain to sort thru.
Yeah, we can always count on Jo Ann to do a reliable smell check for us. I vote her for president of the Microstock Artist Union. 
153
« on: June 30, 2015, 06:20 »
154
« on: June 30, 2015, 06:14 »
Looks like they have fixed it already! It was supposed to have been set to 50, and not 30 
Yep! Confirmed! DT says it was a "bug"  http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_41443
155
« on: June 29, 2015, 18:00 »
30 keywords to describe subject in photo is plenty. Others are probably even not relevant.
Depends on the pic. Sometimes it's hard to get ten, sometimes 50 is 'tight'.
Yes. And if you only have pictures of individual wild animals, it's easy to get 10. But we all don't create the same kind of images. DumC: Look at this picture by Creatista and tell me if you can properly sell it with only 30 KWs (include conceptual and objective):  biker, nerd, laptop, geek, dork, plaid, white, hat, bar, european, tavern, adult, cap, male, bandanna, sweater, gang, digital, people, intelligent, caucasian, female, expert, technology, smiling, computer, showing off, expectation, grinning, cool, middle aged, beer, troubleshooting, shoulder, woman, group, motorcycle gang, smart, ironic, mature, fedora, clever, proud, eyeglasses, man, confident, watching, happy By the way, the SS suggests we do keywording at their latest webinar ( http://www.shutterstock.com/blog/learn-effective-keywording-in-our-shuttertalk-live-presentation), it is impossible to under 30 KWs for most pictures.
156
« on: June 29, 2015, 13:38 »
30 keywords to describe subject in photo is plenty. Others are probably even not relevant.
The only other site with such rigid requirements is Crestock. How good are sales over there? 
157
« on: June 29, 2015, 11:06 »
Holy cow. I went to submit uploads and I'm getting errors that they have KW limit of 30 now. I average 35-40. Their process is already too long. Now this? 
I submitted some images yesterday and it was all good. So that's very new change.
Same here. It happened overnight. What a pain. They should;ve sent us notices so we could prepare ahead of time.
158
« on: June 29, 2015, 10:48 »
Holy cow. I went to submit uploads and I'm getting errors that they have KW limit of 30 now. I average 35-40. Their process is already too long. Now this?
159
« on: June 26, 2015, 19:29 »
I appealed and resubmitted with case number etc and they have now been accepted.
Yeah, I got some case numbers too now. I'll let you all know what happens...
160
« on: June 24, 2015, 19:52 »
There isn't an Other at the highest levels, and only random categories have them at the 2nd level. Part of the problem. No consistency.
See, totally confusing. They need to just get rid of them.
161
« on: June 24, 2015, 17:59 »
Filling Fotolia categories are getting to be time-consuming.
To start with the categories offered are not comprehensive and there are limited choices to select from.
Agreed. Adobe has pared some down and merged the two types, but they still lack generality. My solution: Save everything in the queue as Other or Background
162
« on: June 24, 2015, 12:48 »
I started uploading to Pond 5 and have about 170 images on line to test the waters. Has anyone had much lucky selling photos through them ?
I have 4,288 illustrations on there as of today. I've made about $100 (much more than I would have made before they acquired Pixmac). Just pennies for only 1.5 years. But the submission process is practically effortless and the commissions are decent. So I keep uploading.
163
« on: June 23, 2015, 13:24 »
I see. I never got hired as a reviewer, so I don't know the pay structure. However, if that is the case for SS, then it makes perfect sense. I figure if support doesn't step in to help, then the reviewer will get mad enough to complain that I've been resubmitting the same drawings. Then I'm hoping they'll see that my stuffdespite its unconventional grotesque stylesells well, and tell the reviewer to cool it with his/her 100% rejections of my work. SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept).
And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
Some sites pay more for rejections, the reasoning being it takes longer to inspect an image thoroughly to determine that it needs to be rejected.
164
« on: June 23, 2015, 13:19 »
As an illustrator, I have seen a shift from mostly subscription sales to mostly credit sales, with more money per image sold. So it has been good for me in that regard. 
165
« on: June 23, 2015, 06:40 »
After doing a resubmission test of some "Poor Execution" rejections compared to acceptedand sellingoutline and separate component illustrations from the same original, I am convinced there is a vector reviewer working there who is just trying to make money by rejecting large amounts of work. It is much easier to reject work basing a judgement of a specific contributor than it is to open it, really look at it and check for problems (I have applied for reviewer positions at SS just to get an idea of what they must do and their job is to weed out images with technical problems more than subjective "execution" issues). So I have sent complaints to support with various batch and image numbers.
166
« on: June 20, 2015, 11:36 »
I just joined this site and all I see is doom and gloom. I'm a newbie photographer/vector artist and I think selling microstock is a great source of passive income. I would never do it full-time, but as a part time thing, it's pretty great....
Unfortunately, it is easier to destroy (complain) than it is to build (inspire). I too strive for optimism. My family depends on me for income. MS is becoming a bigger slice of that income. So I must be optimistic and open to opportunity or we'll lose our house and starve. Peace.
167
« on: June 19, 2015, 13:55 »
For the first time in my 5 years as a microstock artist, my acceptance rate is higher on iStock than it is on Shutterstock!
168
« on: June 19, 2015, 13:53 »
SS must have hired a batch of reviewers that just want to be paid for all their rejections (easier to do than to accept). And just to add to the jollity of it all, I'm getting Illustratve Editorial images rejected for
Altered Editorial -- Major alterations to editorial content such as adding or removing objects from a scene are prohibited. Alterations that go beyond traditional photographic techniques (dodging/burning, cropping, color adjustments, etc.) are unacceptable.
when I have done NOTHING.
Nothing added, nothing taken away.
But how can I prove this?
Sigh........
169
« on: June 19, 2015, 08:02 »
I'm now at 100% rejection for "Poor Execution" of my illustrations now (my average is 60 submissions weekly). Unprecedented! I've got a 4,000+ portfolio selling 200+ monthly of other "Poor Execution" images? They've got to have a reviewer that hates my work. I've gone this far with great success of acceptances and sales on SS only to be stopped by one reviewer? This is such BS!!!
170
« on: June 17, 2015, 06:28 »
Yeah, I think they are taking ANYONE for reviewers. Inconsistent and crappy. Then they keep changing options for Reviewer Notes. Annoying! I'm going back and forth with them now on "poor rasterization." I asked them to show me where things are poorly rasterized. It's becoming clear that the inspector opens the file at 100% (or more likely 200%), sees whatever's in the middle of the illustration, doesn't understand what it is because he/she never looks at the whole image, sees overlapping vector shapes and misinterprets where the shapes meet as "noise" or something. But most of all I think the new auditing system is pressuring them to make rejections, so they just press the most likely reason they can think of. Once in a great while the reason is valid (for example, I forgot to click the "illustration" button), but the great majority of the time the rejection is bogus.
Hopefully with Adobe Stock SS will take a step back and rethink this process.
171
« on: June 16, 2015, 16:05 »
I love how they reject my seamless patterns as not seamless when they are absolutely seamless! They are also now rejecting my submissions of Latino women because of the non-English word "Latina!" Moreover, they reject most of them for not having a correct reference file when I attach the reference file! So I resubmit and then it's rejected for "poor execution"! Time to resubmit again!
172
« on: June 16, 2015, 10:08 »
Since Adobe stepped into fotolia things seems to improve a lot. Hope the sales are going the same way. Thanks for the good work.
I agree. But I hate the company for trying to turn us into software rental sharecroppers with the CC scheme, but I'm making much more per sale. Most of them have been non-subscription.
173
« on: June 13, 2015, 08:08 »
Thanks Striving. We'll see you around....
Fuel, for some reason my account has been deleted at Stockfuel. I was owed money as well. None of my images are there and I cannot login. I sent a message to [email protected]. Maybe you can look into this.
174
« on: June 07, 2015, 17:43 »
I do realise it, that's why I said I'll take the advice on board in two separate posts.
What's your point?
I think he means that you come across as a bit cocky and glib, especially for somebody just getting started.
I guess I'll just have to watch what I type and keep my newbie comments to myself then.
The internet is the worst and best place for advice. Worst in that anonymity removes natural inclinations towards politeness and best in that you can find information once reserved for rulers and wealthy individuals. If you look at the constructive feedback and compare it to the non-constructive feedback, you'll find that the constructive feedback generally outweighs the non-constructive. However, as human beings, mistreatment or abuse turns on our instincts to flee. So it is with internet forums. Keep moving forward and learn from your mistakesand the mistakes of others. Advice is generally inferior to personal experience. Peace.
175
« on: June 06, 2015, 10:59 »
From the earnings you people have shared it seems that i have a lot to learn. Have about 400 images on istock and get a payout every 4 months or so. SS has been a new start, just hit 50 images there and got my first payout
Those numbers sound about right to me. However it can change dramatically due to trends or specialties in your portfolio.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
