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 - Me
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
151
« on: September 28, 2014, 00:51 »
FAA doing fine for me. I have about 1500 landscapes up with them and regularly sell $500+ a month from maybe 7-10 sales. Do some research and see what sells on there by using their best sellers information. A year ago I was close to stopping there and then it just picked and has been going well ever since, more sales you have it appears the more sales you get!
152
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:35 »
"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."
Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell. Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.
Really? These genres don't sell? $hit, better scrap my portfolio of over 5000 images which comfortably bring in well over four figures a month.
Wonder what other landscape photographers think about landscapes being "easy" to shoot?
Notice I didn't say 'good', 'great' or 'epic' landscapes.
LOL, fair enough Sean
153
« on: July 10, 2014, 10:35 »
"Fountains, bridges, waterscapes, landscapes, landmarks, etc."
Aside from zoo animals and feet, you've named thed the top things that are easy to shoot and don't sell. Just because you like shooting them doesn't mean anyone necessarily wants to buy them.
Really? These genres don't sell? $hit, better scrap my portfolio of over 5000 images which comfortably bring in well over four figures a month. Wonder what other landscape photographers think about landscapes being "easy" to shoot?
154
« on: July 10, 2014, 10:31 »
The shirt could be the problem
155
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:58 »
I think sales are affected by moon phases or astrological alignments, seems pretty obvious to me
156
« on: June 26, 2014, 00:09 »
Never pictured IS as Bambi's mom
157
« on: June 06, 2014, 13:40 »
Don't like your member name much
158
« on: May 28, 2014, 09:49 »
+1
Opted out of Alliances
159
« on: May 22, 2014, 14:19 »
Can't access on IE, Firefox or Chrome - anyone else?
FTP not working also "Could not connect to server".
160
« on: May 19, 2014, 14:54 »
Assuming you are in France does it not pick up your IP address as French so uses that as your location, similar to what Google and such does?
161
« on: May 15, 2014, 10:36 »
Hate to rain on parades, but.....
Portfolio of 6000 on 123RF and showing seasonal trends expected in line with other sites but regularly get BME during peaks, even after three years. For example, this month already at higher level than whole of February and January this year, and well above same periods in previous years.
Good site for me. Portfolio of nature, landscapes, food, abstracts, concepts, but no people.
162
« on: May 08, 2014, 00:08 »
well bruce sure objected to being paid fairly while at the helm at IS. but he is a new man now with $50 million in the bank, so after years of royalties being 20% or so and undercutting many agencies, it's ok now to be holier than though and have values.
that said, if he had those values from the get go, i'd be a loyal fan for life, but these new values are very very late to arrive and for that i see it for what it is.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.
So you're going to base a business decision on some bad feelings from the past, even with the current opportunity is a good one. Well that's brilliant.
Stocksy improved literally everything that was wrong with iStock. Fair royalty rates, image exclusivity vs. artist exclusivity, simple pricing, and on top of that they added the coop model and a pretty much unheard of 100% EL royalty. But you're still going to hold a grudge about iStock...
But watch out for that sneaky Bruce... he's going to get us with his fair pay and generous terms. Just when we least expect it, BAM, he'll hit us with some other fair thing to add to Stocksy. Then you'll be laughing, right? Wait...

So if FT offered the EXACT same royalty payments as Stocksy in the future, you would happily sign up and forget about past misdemeanours? Of course you should consider past performance in future business decisions, it would be nave and foolhardy not to. We all do it everyday. You don't go to a restaurant where you don't enjoy the food, you don't go to a shop where you know the service is bad, the list goes on. Why should this be any different? In the past the guy has paid unfair royalty rates, why should you not expect the same in the future? Because he now has $50million and a conscience? Because it is now a co-op? The largest co-op in the world is struggling in the UK. A co-op is not the holy grail all saving grace of business, it is a business model which can fail the same as any other. It is down to the management of the business/co-op and in this case the management has a track record. Please. Save me your platitudes for Bruce Almighty. The proof is in the performance. At the moment things are going well and congratulations to them all, but that is no guarantee of future security or prosperity.
163
« on: May 05, 2014, 23:58 »
I assume you mean that when PS completes the photomerge there are 12 layers and there are visible white lines on the final image where the different images join? Flatten the image and the white lines go away. Does for me anyway.
164
« on: April 29, 2014, 15:49 »
I was browsing in Offset collection and stumbled on this shot http://www.offset.com/photos/61270.
Since most of my issues with SS is focus, it makes me wonder if the images in Offset need to go through the same reviewing process. Don't get me wrong, I don't intend to bash Offset or the photographer. In fact I have high admiration for this photographer and have been following their works for years now.
Hello,
Sorry for the confusion - that image looks like an upload error (the wrong file in a single edit being uploaded or approved) and has been removed.
Best,
Scott
And that's why you don't link to someone else's images.....
165
« on: April 29, 2014, 12:55 »
I am a contributor with a vested interest in overall sales growth. Here are my FT portfolios:
http://us.fotolia.com/p/19000
http://us.fotolia.com/p/200920505
Are you employed by Fotolia?
Hi everyone, Yes, after volunteering as a moderator in the Fotolia forum for many years I made the decision to leave the restaurant business I had been in for more than 25 years and turn my focus to my true passion of photography. The timing was fortuitous as an opening came available on the Customer Service team at Fotolia that I happily accepted this past September. Working in this position has allowed me the opportunity to see firsthand the passion and commitment the team at Fotolia has towards increasing business and revenue for all involved including photographers. Going into the job I have the unique perspective of looking at it from the view of a contributing photographer. As much as I love to talk about myself (NOT!) I would like to reiterate a couple of solid points that some people in this forum are attempting to brush off as irrelevant. The license at Dollar Photo Club has changed as a direct result of the urging of contributors. The license at Dollar Photo Club has always been a Standard License but now it has been made more clear. Customers cannot use the images in items that will be resold where the primary value comes from the image (tee shirts, coffee mugs, etc.) and there is now a limit of 500K on the run. As it has been pointed out here, the only difference between buying an image at any stock agency with a subscription plan and buying it at Dollar Photo Club is the fact that the customer can continue to use their purchased downloads even after cancelling their membership. The fact that a customer can continue to use their available downloads without them expiring means that again, a higher percentage of overall spending goes to the contributor. If a member of Fotolia or any stock agency buys a subscription and allows the subscription to expire before using their available downloads, those downloads expire and no commission is paid to the photographer. Dollar Photo Club is hitting a previously untapped market and is driving sales at fast rate. I recommend you think it through with logic rather than passion before deciding if you want to be a part of the growth or simply a witness to it. As has been mentioned, you now have the option to opt out or opt back in manually in your account settings. If you have any questions or concerns my email address is [email protected] and I will be happy to start a dialog with you one on one.
-Mat Hayward
So why are you emailing existing FT buyers and seemingly trying to convert credit buyers into sub buyers?
166
« on: April 26, 2014, 08:22 »
Why?
167
« on: April 11, 2014, 00:00 »
Not allowed to pimp your images Mike so you start digging up old threads to annoy everyone?
168
« on: April 09, 2014, 08:16 »
IF I remember correctly, they contacted me a year or two back. Basically they say they will use their positioning on Getty to sell your images - but you sign your images over to them to put onto Getty as their work so they can sell. Whatever they sell of your images, they pay you up to 40% of the commission. For example. Your image in their portfolio sells on Getty for $500, and they get, for example, 50% commission so $250. They will pay you 40% of $250 i.e. $100. You get $100, they get $150.
I declined politely.
If I want my images on Getty, I will sell them there.
They are basically offering their position as an agent on Getty and for it they get paid more than you do.
Caveat - this is all IF I remember correctly.
ETA - I'm pretty sure with me they were talking about Alamy though.
169
« on: April 04, 2014, 12:16 »
Hopefully its a bug. I just checked and mine are set on 20 too. I have gold rank there.
Same here, just contacted Customer Services asking them to investigate and provide confirmation that any sales at this time will pay out at correct level
Quick reply from FT was they are looking into it and will come back to me
170
« on: April 04, 2014, 00:11 »
Hopefully its a bug. I just checked and mine are set on 20 too. I have gold rank there.
Same here, just contacted Customer Services asking them to investigate and provide confirmation that any sales at this time will pay out at correct level
171
« on: April 02, 2014, 23:59 »
temporarily? 
What?
172
« on: April 02, 2014, 14:44 »
Anyone else getting this on 123RF? Been like it for me for a few hours now. Maybe I missed a maintenance announcement?
173
« on: April 01, 2014, 23:52 »
How do you know they are stolen?
174
« on: April 01, 2014, 10:30 »
You are a very arrogant individual, one who infers that he/she is far more educated and experienced than the masses who choose to be a part of this forum...
Yes, out loud: I am actually 100% sure of that. Last time I checked this wasn't exactly a high art academy board. But you are welcome, raise your hands: how many have taken years of classical/contemporary/applied art classes, drawn/painted hundreds of portraits, figures, nudes, done posters, billboards, annuals, you name it, anything since photoshop (and the rest) 1.0? Of course this is arrogance to you, what else could you say.
. You make COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED statements in here that we are all STUPID, yet you are the mighty engine of success. Your rhetoric essentially states that if we micro stock contributors had your level of expertise, we'd all be successful. Have you returned from fantasyland yet?
What does this delusional rant has to do with my posts? Did I say anything about success in micro or it's relation to expertise in art? You don't need any of that to be successful in micro... and yes I insist: running around claiming that these things like a balancing elephant montage or a handshake shot is his/her idea to be safeguarded from concept thievery, does make them look extremely stupid * 100000000000... but that's not everybody. I'm sure there are many people here that get same amount of laughs out of these originality claims in micro. Here are some caps from me too : It's STUPID 
Just check SS forums, people going in there all up in arms about their "idea getting stolen" then others just keep posting the link after link after of "his idea" often from decades ago. How can someone be that stupid? Quite amazing.
Hands up those of you that did this then lowered yourself to microstock?
175
« on: March 27, 2014, 08:12 »
Honest question, because I am intrigued.
What does it take to make $3K per month from 500-800 images on Shutterstock?
I can only dream of ever being so good, and to achieve such thing.
I would love to see a port like that. It has to be like an Angel peeing in your eyes.
Yo uhave to bear in mind who said this originally and how credible their facts are, not exactly renowned for being accurate.....
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|