1576
General Stock Discussion / Re: Stock Photo Market Crash
« on: April 13, 2009, 16:10 »
no I'm not a pedal pansy
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. 1576
General Stock Discussion / Re: Stock Photo Market Crash« on: April 13, 2009, 16:10 »
no I'm not a pedal pansy
1577
General Stock Discussion / Re: Stock Photo Market Crash« on: April 13, 2009, 12:11 »http://unsharpmasked.com/blog/2008/05/2008-stock-photo-market-crash/ Is what he wrote wrong or are people here just "whistling past the graveyard" to ignore the truth. If this comes true as predicted in 2010 do you say it's old news. When I read the subjects here it seems that people are agreeing with what he said but defending when somebody else points out the same thing. 1579
General - Top Sites / Re: Is iStock worth the effort?« on: March 17, 2009, 11:53 »I managed to get a few accepted, none have sold. You have to keyword everything in their unique scheme, and it's tedious. Some of the rejections made at least some sense, others were just off the wall. Reviews and appeals take weeks. There's more, but why go on. .. Tough call when someone has 5 photos accepted in 1 month and wants sales or else. When you get done shooting things you found around the house you might do better. 1580
General Stock Discussion / Re: 2008 microstock comprehensive survey« on: February 09, 2009, 22:00 »
Good work making the survey the results will be interesting.
1581
General Stock Discussion / Re: Get Paid Shooting Nothing« on: February 01, 2009, 14:48 »
This thread has officially been hijacked. ![]() 1582
Gimmestock.com / Re: WERE is gimmestock anyone« on: January 26, 2009, 14:20 »
Pathetique 69470 images XXL $1 nearly no sales you will make payout in 2020.
1583
Shutterstock.com / Re: Another image thief at SS« on: December 23, 2008, 16:56 »You take photos have them stolen or have concepts stolen while sites sell them for peanuts. You work to take pictures that are rejected for dumb reasons and complain that reviews take to long. Then we drool on our face being happy that we made a sale for a dollar and complain that it takes two weeks to get paid.You came here anonymously which doesn't help with your credibility. You only made a few posts and most are complains about microstock. All serious traditional photo stock businesses already realised that microstock business model works and allows to earn quite substantial money. You are too late mate (by a couple of years) 4 out of 5 chose to attack me instead of problems. These people get a free pass for same complaints.
LOL Keep an eye out on all the major microstock sites for your own images uploaded under a different username. So far, I've found that someone has stolen (and re-uploaded) a large collection of my portfolio at Fotolia and BigStockPhoto. I have a large portfolio at both agencies, so the thieves obviously aren't very bright. Quote Not been a good year for me at FT....Subs,odd rejections,below par sales, and now this!
I am sure a lot of others are like me, sick of the boards being spoiled by bullying and petty jealousy. I agree 1584
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Las Vegas loves iStock!« on: December 23, 2008, 16:45 »
Good phot good use. 1585
General Stock Discussion / Re: For Independent Submitters Only: What Stock Agency Do You Feel Is Best?« on: December 23, 2008, 16:41 »None of the above until they start charging more for mine work and paying more. You can make more begging on a street corner. I do only for myself. 1586
Shutterstock.com / Re: Another image thief at SS« on: December 20, 2008, 07:45 »
dgool steals all his photos and brags about best seller and uploads a microsoft windows background as his own lying that he made the picture. This is the low life that inhabits microstock. dgool couldn't shoot his own foot with a shot gun. You take photos have them stolen or have concepts stolen while sites sell them for peanuts. You work to take pictures that are rejected for dumb reasons and complain that reviews take to long. Then we drool on our face being happy that we made a sale for a dollar and complain that it takes two weeks to get paid.
1587
General Stock Discussion / Re: For Independent Submitters Only: What Stock Agency Do You Feel Is Best?« on: December 20, 2008, 07:11 »
None of the above until they start charging more for mine work and paying more. You can make more begging on a street corner.
1588
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Las Vegas loves iStock!« on: December 20, 2008, 06:51 »
Miltimillion dollar casinos pay a dollar for a photo from microstock to show on the LCD screens. How stupid do photograpers feel when they get robbed like this for their work. Peanuts are for monkeys but photographers get peanuts for microstock brag about getting cheated with low pay and are happy. Maybe you can get a book to buy a picture for 49p and brag about that to. Don't wake up the microstock sites need you.
1589
Dreamstime.com / Re: Featured DT photographer on Alamy« on: December 10, 2008, 14:23 »Okay i checked he is not exclusive at iStock but he should really change the L-license at Alamy and the exclusive status at FT and DT otherwise he is in trouble. Exclusive DT series is on Alamy Licensed. http://tinyurl.com/6j9dww He's breaking the rules at many sites including Alamy. Does anyone rom DT or FT read these subjects. 1590
Alamy.com / Re: alamy contributor event 2008 video« on: December 01, 2008, 23:46 »I'm assuming if i were to put them under rights protected it would get a higher rank? ranking has nothing to do with the way you set the license. rights managed exclusive is the buyers terms not your choice. all they did was change the name from licensed to rights managed exclusive, exclusive use by the buyer, not Alamy exclusive photos. You need to read the changes and contract again. http://www.alamy.com/notice-board-1108.asp 1591
Microstock News / Re: Moodboard« on: November 12, 2008, 23:40 »
Watermarks were a big complaint for the last year on other sites. LO for exampl http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2472.0 now it's not important.
![]() 1592
Microstock News / Re: Moodboard« on: November 11, 2008, 12:57 »The site looks good - almost like another Lucky Oliver. Anyone selling anything there? At moodboard we dont make photographers jump through hoops to see higher earnings. If pictures are strong enough from the outset, and photographers are happy to give us image exclusivity, well team them with the moodboard collection that enhances their best features. Another micro dead end site added to the list and a weak watermark. ![]() |
Submit Your Vote
|