|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 79
1526
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:13 »
SS is the leader for a reason, and that's why they will be celebrating, even though the forum trolls here, want to turn the IS announcement into another "why I hate SS" hijack. Fact is, this is just one more lame attempt to close the door after the customers are out of the agency. Lets stick with the OP and the IS announcement please?
not a troll, nor a |why I hate SS | cheerleader. just a reminder that the more you troll why IS will never do anything right, u bring out the champagne for SS laughing at you for allowing their inconsistency and intransparent filling the forum with double-speak , and allowing them the continual echelon being left without a contender. as in any business, monopoly is unhealthy for the proliterian and opium-smokers.
1527
« on: September 02, 2014, 16:40 »
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
Interesting that so many people have voted your post up. I think that must be more to do with sentiment than careful analysis. Since nobody knows the outcome.
Hands up - I am iStock exclusive ! Though at this point I am completely neutral being 8 months into a completely different thing. And I always was. I am more curious than concerned about iS at this point. Though FWIW I have been personally around photo agencies since 1989 - and the friends and family since the 60s. And iStock is just a bit of what Getty does and how it works.
If I was an SS stock holder; as an investor I would be worried about them being seriously under diversified. What else do they actually do which justifies their price in a market for cheap pictures which is moving towards free.
Maybe it wasn't champagne corks you heard 
as Shelma clarified it isn't so much as cheering for SS than booing IS. still, i think it is cutting one's own throat to cut IS as much as you hate them because as i said before, so many +'s for SS even when u read at their forum and here about how they robotically manipulate earnings and not to mention, their enmasse rejections inconsistency. all of which still needs to be transparent. before all this shenanigans as one commentor adeptly calls it, i would cheer for SS unequivocally. in fact, when i see the old SS before they went public, (no mysterious switch-flipping; no robot reviewers; ... (you fill in the rest here)... i will be the first one to lead the anti-IS brigade. but for now, i hate to think of letting SS lead even further.. with who else to take IS place as the main contender??? Fotolia ? lol dollar club.. Dreamstime? hell, sleepily comatose since they started similars banning and facebook liking. don't hate IS so much that u cut your own throat of what's to come after SS AGM2014.
1528
« on: September 02, 2014, 14:42 »
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
why the +9 for SS cork-popping? the more monopoly for SS the more they will continue to pull their shenanigans on contributors. be careful what u wish for? 
1529
« on: September 01, 2014, 16:40 »
This is no fluke.
It's been widely reported that most SS veterans are reporting lower sales. There are two primary reasons:
- THE BIG CRASH OF EARLY 2013. Most veterans can pinpoint the month of March 2013 as when their earnings took a massive hit and have never recovered. Some believe there was a significant change in search results, and SS themselves have admitted they saw a huge rise in new contributors that month, most likely due to former iS exclusives dropping the crown and joining at that time.
- HUGE INCREASE IN OVERALL COMPETITION. It's an unavoidable mathematical truth. All other factors being equal, to maintain the status quo, the average contributor must grow his/her port at the same rate that an agency's overall collection grows. If Shutterstock's collection grew from 25 to 40 million in the past year (which it has) its total offerings grew by 60%. Did your SS port grow by 60% in the past year? If not, you're probably making less money than you did a year ago. Factor in the Big Crash, and your decrease may be HUGE.
I can't say I agree that the competition would kick into affect in one month so drastically. It would be a slower ramp than this. It is something else for sure to do with the search algorithm.
+1000, it was like a light switch. and through all our questions and talk. We will never know the reason.
if u refer to the light switch (more like a fuse-box turned off), whenever sales shoots up for your account, i too find that happening month to month. as soon as i get a large sale, for example, the rest of the month drops to zero days big time. it is like there is a capping, as others say. i am not sure, but i am tempted to agree based on my earnings. but thankfully , i have been reaching payout monthly. only, as i said, repeat... the blackout begins as soon as i hit payout.
1530
« on: September 01, 2014, 16:32 »
SS earnings are falling off a cliff...
For you or for everyone? Isn't it hard to compare your earnings (not you persay, but any one person) to the thousands of others at SS, or any agency? The only way to get a true picture is to take every contributor's sales and average them and that's not possible here. It's also a moving target as more images are added daily. I'm sure the agencies can crunch those types of numbers and when they see sales falling as a whole they make changes to the search algorithms that may benefit different people in order to maintain the bottom line.
i suppose u r right. SS does not lose, just the specific contributor(s) may find their earnings drop. but perharps i am too picky, not including the rare SOD of 28, 82, 105, etc... and saying sales have dropped compared to last year. but bottom-line , sales has increased for me . i was just pointing out what our colleague said, - that SOD should not be the saving grace of a poor month.
1531
« on: September 01, 2014, 16:07 »
Having built a triple A game recently from scratch I am sadly and without reservation qualified to answer your question (sadly because I would not do such a big project again on my own) lucky i had the time.
CGI is quite difficult.....
CGI is fun but be prepared to sit out with your computer for hours rendering just one image, unless you pay a rendering farm.
thx much 4 the insight and experience, Ubermansch! so it's closer to vector, huh? someone who already does vector would make the transition, but not someone like me from scratch. as u point out, the time is the crucial thing. would anyone go to all that for a few cents to what ?? 200 the highest earning per download on SS??? i suppose if one is that good at CGI, one would not even care to do ms anyway; one finds work with a corporation and get paid for it. i can see it as a good career for someone starting out in life.
1532
« on: August 31, 2014, 17:31 »
laura, once u reached payout, u get paid within 15 days of the following month.
u also get an email letting u know u will be paid... within 15 days.
the only problem i can guess would be u have not submitted to SS the Tax form.
whether u r with a country requiring with-holding tax or not, u still have to give SS that form before u get paid.
1533
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:16 »
suppose we combine both CGI and photo. is it really difficult to learn CGI? or would it be similar to how most of us got to learn to use PS. is the transition that insurmountable for us? can someone who is a wiz at CGI give me an insight ? (cheers in advance). i ask this question bcos... i cannot see how a client would prefer all CGI, in the same way as someone would prefer a CGI pinup gal vs a real photo of a real woman  if this is the direction we r headed, porn will be all CGI by now, wouldn't it?
1534
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:05 »
I had a couple of big SODs this month, without them it would have been abysmal. It shouldn't be that way. The SODs compensate for the drop in earnings. They should be the gravy, the cherry, the cream, etc. I appreciate the high SODs, but developments at Shutterstock are still worrisome. The fact they refuse a raise whilst reporting record sales is sad.
+1 . got 2 agree. SOD should not be the saving grace of a poor (quote: abysmal) summer stats. it does not erase the fact that SS earnings are falling off a cliff... no doubt with all their "experiments" to screw-up placement for many contributors with consistently historical selling images. if machine is not broken, what try to fix it all the time??? 
1535
« on: August 30, 2014, 20:25 »
Go test the search. For example "car" you get all photos of people (some have part of a car, most do not) Try "Bicycle" you get people, some have a bicycle part, but not one photo of just a bicycle.
What I'm getting at, is the keywords are already spammed with the usual distant and unrelated subjects. Dead...
i guess that's the opposite of what you get when you search of google, yahoo,etc... for say "mother teresa" and you get porn  ie. one gives you what you' re not looking for; the other (spamming) add more so you get what you're not looking for.
1536
« on: August 30, 2014, 15:15 »
Sad to say but... this is a good reason to avoid vacations to England. I'd rather spend my money and pixels visiting photographer friendly nations.
i am not even sure what that means ( photographer friendly nations.) many nations have photograph-restricted places whether it be border crossing, toll bridges, private property, musuem, palaces, naval base, etc. regardless of whether you shoot from off the property, from or distance or not.
1537
« on: August 29, 2014, 16:23 »
(i thought more coz' were not perfect images)
Maybe you should raise your standard?
Maybe agencies should to pay us better first? Or should we keep raising our standards, but agencies can keep the earnings on 2005 levels?
Shutterstock have made it extremely clear there will be no raises and no extra tier when they were asked. Under what incentive should we then raise our standards when they ask us? The 120 dollar royalty mystical carrot which only happen to the select and few?
oh, u mean there is one higher than $105 ? seesh, & i thought getting two $82 carrots in 6 months was something surpisingly charming, .. then again, if i removed the mystical carrot(s) the last 6 months sales are a sorry sight, indeed 
1538
« on: August 29, 2014, 15:34 »
Whoop Dee Doo. Passed the $10k mark. End of leveling up updates. Carry on.
congrats. must be a nice feeling giving IS a kick in u know where although i would dare say (10K in 8mths ) it's going to be a while before u make the kind of real dough as u did with IS that made you superISman, huh? .
1539
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:00 »
no expert legalese here, but outside in the production world, in a studio owned by Photographer A, props,lighting,etc... no matter who presses the shutter in that studio, it all becomes the property of the Photographer. but in micro or stock photography, i cannot and will not claim to know the rules there or to put it in a more objective nutshell... eg. say it is not the wife, or partner, ... but an employee who uses the studio (props and all) to shoot (with or without the knowledge or permission)... it would consider it the photographer's property. if not, what's there to prevent an employee ( or in an extreme case...ie. office cleaner... at night, caretaker,etc) to do that???
1540
« on: August 28, 2014, 20:27 »
yes, i have to agree with both jo ann and sue,
that indeed agencies make it difficult for buyers to understand which licensing is needed.
also, that "royalty free" is another problem to many to mean "nothing to pay".
perharps it is time to reword that much word of ambiguity (royalty-FREE)
1541
« on: August 28, 2014, 18:30 »
I'm not submitting another photo to SS until they come clean
I'm not holding my breath.
i think many (re the thread on SS forum of the same issue) felt the same (for months), but went blue in the face and have long lost consciousness
1542
« on: August 28, 2014, 18:24 »
it's good u found out about this.
which makes me wonder how many other magazines,etc could have done the same without an EL.
how many of us actually go searching for that? i know i don't... and i just rely on the EL i get,
taking for granted the agency/client did the right thing.
even if we did look for it, it's not a certainty that we will find it like you did.
hope u get paid now that they "realise" it reqd an EL.
1543
« on: August 26, 2014, 15:08 »
Sue been posting for years here. She uses same name as on Istock. She never change her name or went anonymous. I am confused. By what definition is she a troll?
The only other person to accuse me of trolling was Lobo.
(It's not exactly the same name, but I make no effort to be anonymous, nor have I had another account or name here.)
we know SS IS wolves lurk here in sheep clothing , so u never know
1544
« on: August 26, 2014, 11:07 »
as i said before, i still wonder why someone would put en-masse works of someone else's.
is this due to flickr announcement that they are now getting into ms , and these ppl are opening accounts with large portfolios hoping to cash in with their fraud?
like another commentor said, they must have gotten the images from a dvd off torrent or whatever.
or this is a "community" of thieves using flickr to broaden their "market".
the mind boggles. i am not even convinced that the first one was actually himself, since he has more to lose as an administrator with his cv on linkedn , if he was to be branded an IP thief.
1545
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:45 »
another one... https://www.flickr.com/photos/tjmartins/
Images seem to be suspended already.
not all of it, Sue ! the others look familiar. at least i recognized the one of the girl in retro dress with the drink in her hand. i think that came from some fashion mag. in fact the rest that is still there looks like they could have been taken from the same "mode site"... given the similar retro faded polaroid type "style"
1546
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:38 »
Because the only reply given by Scott so far lack Focus - subject is blurry, too soft, or out of focus.
correction : i think the actual wording is something to the effect of ... focus is not where we think it should be
1547
« on: August 26, 2014, 10:33 »
" For everyone not getting sales, someone else is."
This is the same old nonsense that IS peddle. If anyone says anything not positive some IS cheerleader will chip in to suggest that those doing well say nothing. My experience is that those saying nothing are doing equally badly, they are just so dispirited they can't be bothered.
+1 blame it on upbringing. when as a child TV is blasting u with "don't worry be happy" ..., "put on a happy face " ... shoeless beggar being grateful while looking at another beggar with no legs, etc...
the SS IS cheerleader ms-tocker is that shoeless beggar exemplifying contentment , looking up to his'her SS-IS deity saying, "at least I still have my legs !!!"...
for now ... while his/her colleagues have long gone jumped off the cliff
1548
« on: August 25, 2014, 18:31 »
if Ansel Adams had all his work on microstock, he would be earning about $200 per month.
heavens, mentioning Ansel Adams and ms in the same sentence that's like the late great Luciano Pavarotti singing at the street corner for small change. sacrilege
1549
« on: August 25, 2014, 17:50 »
something confuses me about this. why would he pay for the images and then put it here on flickr?
say he has a sub a/c which allows him to withdraw all he wants ( within limits),
he still paid for the images . why would he do that?
unless he had used them for his own business ads, etc and then having them all included here on flickr for anyone to download. it doesn't make sense why anyone would want to take business away from us.
as sjlocke points out he is not just some kid playing around in hacking or stealing someone's photos.
for this reason,
sure would like to find out from him the purpose of his flickr account.
1550
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:38 »
now that's one agency moving in the right direction.
feliz cumpleanos (many happy returns of the day )...
congrats to all who got the 100%
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
