|
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 - RT
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 77
1651
« on: July 08, 2008, 07:19 »
I'm just wondering what happens if one of these companies falls way behind, would they sell us all down the river to gain back some market share?
Just My meager observation.
IF?
Nothing any microstock site does is ever for anybody else other than themselves, we as individual contributors mean nothing to them.
But as we have seen recently with fotolia, they do listen to us and are forced to make changes if we refuse to upload or delete our portfolios. I don't see a site surviving if it has low sales and undercuts the others too much.
Steve, With due respect, Fotolia only did a mild bit of damage limitation, the majority of contributors didn't want the subscription package implemented and at the least demanded the same minimum commission that they get on Shutterstock, neither thing happened. Dreamstime did the same thing. iStock, Stockxpert and Snapvillage didn't wait to listen, they offered an opt out more or less from the start. 123RF's marketing campaign is different in so much that we all knew about the subscription package when we signed up, and any results they get from it should benefit the contributor.
1652
« on: July 08, 2008, 04:14 »
I'm just wondering what happens if one of these companies falls way behind, would they sell us all down the river to gain back some market share?
Just My meager observation.
IF? Nothing any microstock site does is ever for anybody else other than themselves, we as individual contributors mean nothing to them.
1653
« on: July 08, 2008, 04:00 »
They showed a lot of promise right up until the minute they opened for business, after that it's all gone quiet.
It's not rocket science, why do so many of these sites think they will get sales just by being there, agressive marketing is the only way to become a success.
Yay have missed the boat, why open for business but wait a few months before starting your marketing campaign, they've completely lost their USP.
I wonder if their first ad will be along the lines of:
'Yaymicro - we opened a few months ago, we're not getting any sales and now people are deleting their portfolios, come take a look'
1654
« on: July 07, 2008, 19:15 »
I agree that in certain circumstances a crooked horizon works, but IMO it needs to look deliberate, and yes composition rules are there to be broken.
But in this instance the horizon isn't crooked enough.
To fix it would take seconds and I think the shot is good enough to warrant it:
Try select all>edit>distort then (with a grid in place) just pull the top left hand corner down until the horizon is straight, after which select the history brush and brush back the part of the sky, woman and the white surf that was also affected, it may need a tiny bit of healing but it should be OK, hard to tell with the logo where it is.
Re the initial rejection reason, if the discolouration was that bad I think you'd see it even at this size, I think you suffered the fate of an over zealous reviewer who doesn't really understand printing.
1655
« on: July 07, 2008, 17:09 »
Could I also suggest you straighten the horizon, it's one of the things I always look for in a shot that features the sea.
1656
« on: July 04, 2008, 20:04 »
Can you really imagine that the 'image of the year' will be non-exclusive and thus iStock risks having that image available at many other agencies?
Would YOU allow that to happen if you were running iStock?
No absolutely not. And if I were running iStock I wouldn't either, but that was the point of my subtle post, why the pretence? Why can't they just be more open and say it's a competition for exclusives. As a non-exclusive I don't have any problems with them giving exclusives a better deal, I'd be surprised if they didn't, I hate the whole 'them and us' attitude, for me being exclusive doesn't appeal, for some it does, it doesn't make either party any better than the other. Maybe next year they'll introduce image exclusivity and just have the competition open for exclusive content only.
1657
« on: July 04, 2008, 06:13 »
Don't know about you guys but I'm counting the days till 'Punctum Day'. I've got a gut feeling that this year they are going to do away with the stereotypical 'weird and wacky' winning image from an exclusive, and the winner this year will be from a non-exclusive and it will be a run of the mill image that's just nice. I've got this little baby that I know people have held back on rating (or buying come to that) until this years contest was announced:  What about you, got any treasures buried just waiting for the announcement of Punctum Day 
1658
« on: July 04, 2008, 05:57 »
The 4,000,000th was my image. Not sure what you think is BS but it is true. Perhaps, they watched the cue for the right image...but I had no idea when I submitted it that there was even a slight chance I would have the 4,000,000th. I have been on Shutterstock for less than a week now and so far it has outperformed any 1 day I have had on any other sites. Thanks for the Kudos, Rt. Kind of a shame I finally "won" something in my life and it didn't include a new macbook pro or something  . Thanks to Shutterstock for the publicity.
You're welcome, I like the shot, like you say it's a shame you didn't receive anything tangible for it. I also think it's a shame that they didn't include the image or a link to it in their press releases, I had a hard job finding it because the search engine doesn't update quickly enough, it's probably in the system now though. As for the BS, I don't think the person concerned was directing that towards you, more towards the site. Good luck on SS I'm sure you'll do well.
1659
« on: July 03, 2008, 18:52 »
the whole matter can become even more evolved and complicated if one believes in incarnations.
I believe they make some of the best buttonholes there are, much better than roses. 
1660
« on: July 03, 2008, 18:46 »
Yes.
Any market that needs a sepia image.
Sorry to be blunt, but to be honest if the image suits a sepia tone then go with it, stock is a suck it and see market, what have you got to lose.
Wait a while and upload it in colour or B+W aswell and see if that version sells better.
Maybe you could expand in what sort of photo you're thinking off?
I'd also add that some sites will state that you should just upload the colour version and let the buyer do the manipulation, in my experince thats b***sh*t, some (a lot) of my best sellers are where I've manipulated the photo and it's sold better than the original.
1661
« on: July 03, 2008, 18:13 »
Wow what are the chances of that, their 4m image and it happens to be an eyecatching iconic image of something historically American themed, and the contributor just happens to have started uploading.  And there was me thinking it would be a photo of some mundane object on an off white background by somebody that has been with them for 3 years and only has 12 images in their portfolio. One day I'd love to see a site come out with some honesty and say something like " We held back on the queue of uploaded photo's until we found this one which we have chosen to be our xxx millionth image" I'd have much more respect for them then. All said and done it's a good image and well done to the guy that took it, if by chance (sheer miracle) it was the 4 millionth file uploaded it's a worthy winner anyway.
1662
« on: July 03, 2008, 12:16 »
What if my wife's second cousins mother in law took pictures of her godchild's brother at her aunts' nephew's birthday,
Would the mother in law be permitted if her sister inherited the pictures and gave them to her brother's son in law to
upload a single image of their grandchild if the proper model release was obtained?
Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason
Only if your Uncle signs as witness.
1663
« on: July 03, 2008, 12:15 »
1664
« on: July 02, 2008, 04:45 »
Send Brian a PM on this forum, I didn't get a reply to email but he's just answered a thread I started here.
1665
« on: July 02, 2008, 04:43 »
Brian, Thanks for the reply, I've now changed the individual images to take the subscription option out. Any chance of an update as to my other enquiry - FTP? then I could upload lots of images 
1666
« on: June 30, 2008, 16:02 »
An even worse example is Alamy, a UK buyer can purchase an image for GBP then Alamy convert it to USD and then convert it back to GBP and charge me the conversion fee when I get paid!!
It's something that's been argued over ever since they started it.
1667
« on: June 30, 2008, 15:56 »
What you have to remember when dealing with Laurin is that he has this public persona of helpful teacher and microstock guru (--with no and I mean zero evidence of any success in this business plus a history of being caught out in half and untruths, for example see http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt35943-0-asc-0.html and and make a WHOIS query on the domains in question)
That thread was one of his best A classic Rinderism
1668
« on: June 29, 2008, 14:09 »
I just logged in to my Snapvillage account to find that despite having blocked subscriptions (and it's still showing as blocked in my account) somebody has purchased one of my images by subscription.
I've sent an email to support but wondered if anybody else has had this happen?
1669
« on: June 27, 2008, 09:12 »
It's pretty much the same principal as their RAW image and subscription policy - they benefit whilst the contributors get ripped off!
1670
« on: June 26, 2008, 11:15 »
Received mine entitled 'Final Royalty Payment'
Let's hope others take a lesson from their demise, it's an easy lesson - Marketing works!
1671
« on: June 26, 2008, 05:09 »
It depends on what level of work you intend to do, if you are just going to do some basic studio work using 2-3 lights you could probably get by wothout one, however once you start using more advanced lighting set up's you will have to use a light meter.
Oh and I've got a Sekonic L-508, good bit of kit.
1672
« on: June 25, 2008, 09:12 »
...and hope for a bigger sale.
You're going to be bitterly disappointed then, you don't get any extra for a RAW. No offence but I'd also like to add that IMO anybody that uploads a RAW file to Dreamstime is completely mad.
1673
« on: June 23, 2008, 04:28 »
try helping ( selling your book and courses to ) a few people. Theres a concept for ya.
1674
« on: June 19, 2008, 16:19 »
I do have friends.
Those friends are spread out and some in key positions.
These friends are good friends.
Some owe me favors.
Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason
Would I be right in guessing that you are the only person that can see or hear these 'friends' ?
1675
« on: June 19, 2008, 12:15 »
Wondering What Content Buyers Want?
http://blog.photoshelter.com/school/2008/06/buyer-survey-2008.html
Would join Snapvillage and Photoshelter in giving this info absolute full endorsement. This is incredibly valuable info for photographers and is 100% relevant to microstock, too.
Nice of Crestock to jump on the bandwagon, but I thought I better point out that Photoshelters statement: "reports of unfair treatment of photographers" is in reference to poor commissions being paid. Their whole marketing campaign is geared around fair commissions for photographers. As one (if not THE) of the lowest paying stock sites around, do Crestock still give 'absolute full endorsement' of the information, and if so does this mean that anytime in the near future you'll be raising the commision to match Photoshelter and Snapvillage?
Pages: 1 ... 62 63 64 65 66 [67] 68 69 70 71 72 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
