|
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 - MichaelJayFoto
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 27
151
« on: July 22, 2015, 12:00 »
Since categories are redundant (relative to keywords) and usually inadequate and therefore problematic, how about "auto=categories"? Specifically, if a customer does a "category" search, behind the scenes, the site would use an algorithm based on keywords etc. to present that "category" of images to the user. This would eliminate the time wasted by contributors picking categories, and it would also allow the agency to refine, add, and improve the results (via algorithm improvements) of "category" searches by customers. iStock has moved towards presenting keyword-generated searches as results for the links they had on their homepage years ago. It certainly is the smarter approach given the 50+ million of images and the results you get when going by category as a searcher. However, it didn't even keep iStock from dropping the category system for whatever reasons. Maybe we should pool together, each one donating a few dozen images and put out a reward "the first of the top four agencies dropping the category system will get an extra million images". 
152
« on: July 18, 2015, 01:31 »
They say 15% of stock buyers don't use Adobe products. They say 85% are using Adobe products? Does that include Adobe Acrobat Reader and/or Adobe Flash Player? Or did they say 85% are actually using Photoshop or InDesign?
153
« on: July 18, 2015, 01:29 »
I have all paper based model releases in a folder as well.
However, I have switched to the EasyRelease app for most of my release (except for releases for minors that need to be signed by their parents). I keep JPG and PDFs from all those on my life hard disk and a back up device as well as have them stored in my Gmail account.
154
« on: July 17, 2015, 04:58 »
Ok, so most buyers of subscriptions (spending thousands of dollars on photos a year) don't crop, add text, color correct, resize or do any editing at all to images ever? Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users. Spot the difference. I know your view is always limited to what you want to see but this should be an easy one.
155
« on: July 16, 2015, 12:31 »
If you are going to spend $2400 for a photo subscription, $120 to crop, edit, downsize etc.. doesn't seem like much cost. Sure you could do most things without it but it's a relatively small cost to get the industry standard photo editor. Do you really believe a large percentage of people spending thousands of dollars a year on images don't use photoshop? It's not about saving money, it's about time. The buyers I talked about are the ones who directly download images into their WordPress installation or content management system. They don't crop, the don't resize from what I see. Why would you bother storing an image on your desktop, open it in a software to resize, upload it to a web service if you can save this time and have no advantage from it? They mostly have the download integrated into their platform, so the image most likely never reaches the user's hard drive. I can't say what percentage of users work that way. I don't believe all the things I read in marketing material, I just make observations and try to come up with my own explanations. Not necessarily accurate ones but also not necessarily worse than quoting from press releases.
156
« on: July 16, 2015, 11:49 »
It costs $2400 per year for a SS subscription, I would bet almost all of the yearly subscribers are using Adobe ($600 per month for complete and only $120 for PS). I know a couple of big blogs that use Shutterstock for their 5-20 articles they publish each and every day. I wouldn't know why they would need any Adobe product as they use the images just the way they get them from Shutterstock. Not sure if that looks so much different for most editorial users.
157
« on: July 14, 2015, 03:56 »
I read that the premium stuff like E+/Vetta still stays at Gettyimages.com Just to be sure you understand this: As far as I know this is not how it is planned to be. It is more a technical issue they couldn't get solved (yet), so don't be surprised if at some point your images disappear from Getty. I had to ask for them to be removed (since I wanted to submit some of them elsewhere), though. What was "semi-officially" said is that images don't change collections (probably also due to technical issues). So your past images will remain in the Signature collection and 3 credits will be charged to the customers (yes, with the claim of being exclusive...  ) but you will only receive the independent royalty of 15-20% depending on your level. I will be curious to know what happens with iStock Subs and Partner Program payments. As I have read between the lines from others, I think you will only get paid non-exclusive royalties as soon as the crown is gone, even though the sales still happen during your exclusivity. So expect a lot of $0.28 to be paid towards your account in August for the July PP and subs sales. Good luck and all the best. It's a tough market. 
158
« on: July 11, 2015, 04:35 »
Does anyone have any idea or experience if it could mean a drop in sales at Shutterstock?
Since my RPD on Fotolia is about 50% higher than the one on Shutterstock, I wish it was true. However, I don't believe it has any impact at all. Customers tend to stay with "their" agency. I doubt anyone would look for my images on other agencies specifically. But I notice that different images sell on different agencies. So any image that I distribute across agencies gets multiple chances to get seen and "get stuck" at the top of some searches.
159
« on: July 09, 2015, 01:36 »
I am still an iStock contributor and didn't get this e-mail. I was banned from the iStock forums years ago by Lobo, so perhaps banned contributors don't get accounts in the new community web site? I didn't get it either. I think they mentioned that they will at first invite exclusive contributors only and have the non-exclusives join in a second stage. In the mean time, the old forum still "works" - in the sense that it technically can still be used.
160
« on: July 08, 2015, 03:00 »
So, it's a closely guarded secret?
A contributor didn't know, and ten minutes Googling didn't turn up the T&C.
I didn't use my timer because it would have taken longer to turn it on than rather Google it to find this: http://contributors.gettyimages.com/article_public.aspx?article_id=2719#3Quote from section 3 (Contract basis): "Only Getty Images may license the images and Similars (defined in the Agreement and FAQ) you place with us while the Agreement is in effect (Getty Images will have exclusive licensing rights)."
161
« on: July 03, 2015, 06:14 »
Thanks, Michael.
Would the e.g. 22/24% rates have been for the old 'enhanced' prices indies could choose for certain images? That table is so unclear!
No, non-exclusives never could get any more than 20%, and they could never choose a royalty percentage. In the chart you posted, there is only that one left column for non-exclusives. We get "20%" for all PP sales. As I said, 22% was the royalty rate exclusive silver contributors have received for their Vetta images. Remember, at some point they said "Okay, we'll mirror all your Vetta/TAC images to Getty and in exchange cut your royalty rates for those"? It was some time back around 2010, before the RC introduction I think but part of making iStock "more sustainable".
162
« on: July 03, 2015, 02:48 »
If there are any iS exclusives in TS, can you explain all of the bizarre and out of order percentage rates in the rate schedule for the Partner Program? The table doesn't work arithmetically, but where do all of these extra percentage rate points come from? It's probably one of those things that are based on what they have found in their database but doesn't really make sense: The 22/24/26/28 would relate to your (former) Vetta/Agency images, that's the percentage you got for those while the 25/30/35/40/45 are/were for your regular "Exclusive" and "Exclusive+" images. But in theory, even back then you couldn't move Vetta/TAC images into the partner program. So there shouldn't be any images in there with the 22/24/26/28 rates at all. I have no idea how they changed that when they dropped the Vetta and Agency collections and combined them with the former E+ to the new Signature+. (so the order looks bizarre but follows a pattern: "Bronze" regular/"Bronze" Vetta/"Silver regular"/"Silver Vetta" etc...)
163
« on: July 01, 2015, 03:06 »
@MichaelJay or any other "professional" model photographer that is mostly shooting object and him/herself as a model or in worst cases his family members please at least not teach me about business/communication with models. Thank you. So, now you try to insult me as well? Or what else does it mean? I've been in this business for well some years, worked for an agency and learned a lot about cases like this. It doesn't matter where you or your model live or what you both think. It only matters what the contract of the specific agency the image was licensed through would state, and how the laws in the country of the image user is. If you can't live with that, stock isn't right for you. And yes, I personally stopped uploading model photos to microstock agencies several years ago as I didn't want to take the risks involved anymore after several agencies have changed their terms to be even less predictable which uses are allowed or not. Not that macrostock agencies have less lenient terms but at least the chances are much smaller that some hobbyist blogger or party organizer is going to use my model images. But as you keep arguing your case without the ability to distinguish between your personal opinion and reliable legal terms... I guess this won't be your last post here.
164
« on: June 30, 2015, 04:45 »
Ok I see you are just a troll. It sounds like in fact you are the troll. You come to a forum for advice and everybody is pointing out that you are plain wrong and have no point. Still you prefer to insult people giving you that advice instead of coping the fact that the problem is neither the agencies nor the image users but your wrong understanding of how stock images can or can not be used. Take it as it is: Being gay is neither illegal nor particularly offensive these days. Definitely not in Berlin. And even if it was, in the FB page you were showing, the model was used in an header image, there was no implication that he is gay or not. As a matter of fact your claim is legally exactly the same as if you would say "my model is vegan but now a meat company is using him in their advertising". If you can't understand that concept, then most likely stock photography is indeed not the right profession for you.
165
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:28 »
I believe Imagebrief would be one option as long as all the images I would submit are new and not already on (or similar to) my iStock portfolio. You might want to re-read exclusivity terms: You can not license images to anyone with royalty free terms. No matter if they are similar to ones you have in your iStock portfolio or not. Not even directly or through your personal site, so most definitely not through ImageBrief either. So the only briefs you can participate in without violating your exclusivity is the RM briefs which are very few.
166
« on: June 20, 2015, 04:42 »
Your talking from a contributor perspective. You must see it from a buyer perspective. Do you think buyers care about the warm relaxed environment of the agency when they pay 100 dollar for a really really bad iPhone photo? So: How often do you license images for $100?
167
« on: June 19, 2015, 08:49 »
I am almost at the third part of my monthly income of one year ago and is loosing interest for me. I am making nearly 1000 dollars a month now. I konw it's money, but it seems to be too little for the material involved. 2000 vectors and 500 photos. I just noticed now that you have vectors and photos. Well, in that case I'd think the solution is rather straight forward: Quit your photo exclusivity right away. This will keep your income almost steady as I assume you derive more than 80% from your vectors. But you can start submitting your photos to other agencies. This will help you find out if submitting across agencies is something you can deal with. And if you give it some time it might help you already generate some downloads towards the higher ranking levels. Then the field would be prepared if one day you would quite vector exclusivity as well. If you would take that path, I would however also recommend that for the future you make an effort to extend your photo portfolio at about the same speed as your vector portfolio to keep things running.
168
« on: June 19, 2015, 06:51 »
Can I really leave iS Ex and return to the the same state? No, you can not. Even if that would have been the plan, their software is just too faulty to provide that. For example, your images can stay for a very long time on the Getty site (which is positive because they still generate money for you). However, once they are removed from Getty you won't be guaranteed that they ever go back there. Existing images will not be moved down from Signature to Essentials - though that would have been the plan, they didn't manage to implement it and claimed it to be feature since. But new images you upload will enter into the Essentials collection and are unlikely to ever get moved up as well. With regards to percentages I do not believe you are supposed to come back to the same percentage you had. Though again, their faulty system makes it rather likely that this would happen, at least when you return to exclusivity within the same year. However, if you think going back to exclusivity is something realistic for you within the first 24 months, I would urgently recommend to stay exclusive in the first place. As I said before, being non-exclusive only makes sense once you get into the higher ranks at other microstock sites - and I also believe, having one or multiple premium outlets for your images is essential for a good mix. And you can't get all that within six months.
169
« on: June 18, 2015, 03:21 »
I am almost at the third part of my monthly income of one year ago and is loosing interest for me. I am making nearly 1000 dollars a month now. I konw it's money, but it seems to be too little for the material involved. 2000 vectors and 500 photos.
Based on my own numbers you could probably make a similar amount when going non-exclusive. Vectors tend to sell a bit more often than photos but the difference is probably not as huge as it used to be some years ago. I am not sure if the Poll Results are a good indication when you mainly do vector. And it will take some time because at all other agencies you will start at the lowest level. At some places it takes a short time to advance in the rankings, at others the higher levels are just unrealistic these days. That loss in sales you are seeing is basically the result of iStock trying to adapt to the current realities in the microstock field. They had missed a few turns the market took, and now they have implemented all those changes very quickly. But it's not all iStock's fault, it's how the market is. What I've found relieving when I left exclusivity was the freedom to try everything and find out myself what worked for me and what doesn't. I am still always looking for new potential sources of income, within and outside of the stock world.
170
« on: June 17, 2015, 14:22 »
Almost 48 hours have passed since the great news published by Adobe Fotolia.
From yesterday till now I have 60% less sales at Fotolia. Even worse as the weekend sales! Even "Low Earners" Stocks are better. And the others? And two days ago the sun was shining, now the sky is grey and tomorrow rain is predicted. * it, Adobe.
171
« on: June 17, 2015, 14:12 »
nah, far from angry, just irritated by dumbness. Well, I think the dumbest part I have read in this thread so far was this statement: so sry, but the ball is not in my court. Obviously you didn't understand what you were doing when you picked photography as a source of income. You are a self-employed business person who can freely decide whom to make business with. No other entity owes you anything. The ball is always in your court.
172
« on: June 17, 2015, 02:22 »
I'm not saying it's a fraud just that is acutely mismanaged. I am taking my work elsewhere. Most ppl jump at anything, that's why most of the population just get by, and a small % have good fun lives. Although I certainly share a few of your complaints, definitely not the "failure" part, from my perspective that must be based on unrealistic expectations. All of the numbers I have seen so far are far beyond what a startup with limited funding and running on a small, cost efficient team in an oversaturated market could have expected. However, what I am most surprised about reading is that while you claim to have a long going history with iStock and obviously have warned anyone about them in the past, you should have known all the key players in Stocksy from the past. So why did you ever start submitting in that knowledge? Also from other statements you have made, I can only conclude that you have submitted images that are way different (more artistic? less commercial?) than what you successfully sell everywhere else, and now you are complaining that your personal sales are disappointing. Okay, can happen. You can't make everyone happy. But at the very least I'd say everyone who puts in an effort to provide better conditions for contributors than the big market places do, should deserve a little more respect. Even if you don't agree with their decisions.
173
« on: June 15, 2015, 07:47 »
How do I find out the size of my videos on the iPhone?
174
« on: June 15, 2015, 00:22 »
Are you seeing in the market that in focus is irrelevant ? I do know that I shoot images for premium sites I circumstances I wouldn't even have bothered taking for microstock because they are prone to have problems with focus, blur, noise. Then again I still have problems getting large numbers of images up because my mind set is still far too much microstocky. So I can't claim I have figured it all out. But also from seeing other images in more than thumb nail size I can say for sure that no premium size has such a fixation on technical issues than microstock sites do. As I said I won't comment on single images nor single technical issues. I am sure we can all find terrible images in everyone's portfolios, and sometimes we have to wonder how they ever made it through an inspection. However, to close this part of the topic (at least for me) back to your original question: If you want to find out about "what your standards would have to be", there is no point in reviewing images in 100%. When you get significant amounts of images online in microstock on a regular basis, you most likely have all the technical skills. It's mostly a question of content.
175
« on: June 14, 2015, 14:18 »
Are you telling me that the two photos of the pineapple are good? Or that focus is not important? I can't and won't comment on specific photos. I am just commenting on what I am seeing in the market.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 27
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
