|
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 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 77
1701
« on: June 06, 2008, 01:30 »
I personally am thrilled and tickled pink that others are either not uploading anymore,
or are pulling their images altogether.
So now that everyone is pissed at FT it's in my favor because I don't mind the changes they made.
I will have less competition and my images will get reviewed that much faster.
MIZ, I hate to burst your bubble, but can I point out that if and when the good photographers stop uploading or pulling their portfolio it doesn't mean you're going to start to see a huge increase in sales, buyers aren't obliged to buy there and if they can't find a good enough image to buy it doesn't mean they'll take whatevers available, they'll go somewhere else. But as you pointed out you'll get your rejections faster, so at least you're happy with that.
1702
« on: June 04, 2008, 18:20 »
There's always two sides to a story, but then that wouldn't make sensational press headlines would it!
1703
« on: June 04, 2008, 17:55 »
I'd like to read that. Could you post a link?
Sean, It was a comment he made in reply to a question at the annual convention last year, not sure if you'd find a link.
1704
« on: June 04, 2008, 17:51 »
To the OP, what sjlocke has said is true however I recommend that before you consider selling your work on Alamy you take a good look into licensing and get an understanding of the types of licenses available, and the implications of what you've suggested.
As far as the statement from the Alamy CEO, Alan Capel made a comment about this issue in so much that Alamy don't knowingly allow this type of practise because of the way their agency operates.
So although it wasn't mentioned as such you can pretty much guarantee that if Alamy contacted you for previous licensing details on an image you're selling under a RM license, and you replied you don't know because you've previously sold it RF they'd most probably cancel your membership because it makes them look very bad. And believe me from time to time they do contact people for such information.
1705
« on: June 04, 2008, 17:24 »
Well I feel a bit of a fraud because I had already stopped uploading to them, however I'm quite highly ranked there so add me to the list anyway because as I said on their forum I'll consider pulling out altogether over the way we've been treated with the subscription implementation but this decision will be based on whether or not they have an opt out and if not how future subscription sales effect me.
Oh and I have 1389 images there.
1706
« on: June 04, 2008, 11:51 »
Probably a long time - they've featured an image on their front page for ages where a woman is noticeably missing a large part of her abdomen. C'mon, go look for it, you know you want to!
It's funny you should say that, if it's the photo I'm thinking off I went and searched for it because I was amazed they featured that as a landing page image, I was more amazed to find the photo is fine and that they'd buggered up the crop! And as a side note have you ever tried to find an image they feature there, it's hard work, someone should teach them how to add a link within an image!!
1707
« on: June 04, 2008, 11:47 »
so, was recently told I'm too in love with iStock.....I am a very happy exclusive....but I'd like to know some arguments for being non-exclusive....are there things other sites do way better than iStock? I have only worked with iStock but it seems sales are declining a bit, and it has me a little worried. I tend toward optimism, and I think the iStock model is really fabulous...so my gut instinct is to stick it out, but am I missing something about Shutterstock or some of the other agencies?
IMO if you're doing this part time stick where you are you'll make more money, if this is your full time occupation you'll make more by spreading your work. I don't think there's a correct answer, what works for some doesn't for others.
1708
« on: June 04, 2008, 11:44 »
I'm wondering what kind of information is available to buyers when they buy one of our files.
Let's assume that the buyer wants to credit the photographer - is that name included with the file, or do they have to check the photographer's profile on agency's website? What if the real name is hidden and only a nickname available?
I put my name in the file's metadata but doesn't it get stripped by the agency anyways?
The company that I work for purchased a couple of vectors from istock, and there wasn't any information about the artist besides his user profile.
Any experiences?
I can't speak about vectors but when I buy photo's from iStock some have the IPTC information attached and some don't, I don't know why. If the IPTC data is attached some people add their details in the copyright box. However if you're concerned about getting a credit, check what you have written in the copyright section of your approved files (I don't mean the IPTC data I mean the section next to keywords and categories on your iStock file when you go to edit it) because if a buyer did feel the urge to credit you that is the information they should use.
1709
« on: June 03, 2008, 05:52 »
When they were known as RSi they made the same mistake LuckyOliver did and subsequently suffered the same consequence.
1710
« on: June 03, 2008, 04:21 »
I'm only interested in selling images.
Same here, which is why I like others have cancelled my account on Mostphotos.
1711
« on: June 02, 2008, 18:09 »
But you're right, the end is not yet in sight.
Oh great!! now I've got to unpack 
1712
« on: June 02, 2008, 06:55 »
Remember when various traditional microstock photographers like Ian Murray were saying that Microstock would result in a "race to the bottom"? That is, the agencies would undercut each other until the price dropped to almost nothing. Looks like they may have been right after all.
Don't let him see you call him a "microstock" photographer 
Haha... he hasn't got the talent to be a microstock photographer, but it's always good fun winding him up.
1713
« on: June 02, 2008, 03:53 »
I am not married and have just one account with them but if I was it would be tempting to do this. Surely this goes on and is legal.
I wouldn't suggest using this idea in any future proposals you may want to make, women are quite fussy about these moments and I'm not sure that "I want to marry you so I can have two accounts at iStock" would go down to well!
1714
« on: May 30, 2008, 09:34 »
Don't you think there are enough photographers already queuing up to go exclusive there?
Ummm no actually, that's why they've sent the email out.
1715
« on: May 30, 2008, 05:09 »
I hope they introduce individual image exclusivity
That's something I've wanted for a long time, I love iStock but I'll never go totally exclusive because photography is my job, and yet I would upload exclusive images, in fact I'd probably make them the only microstock site I upload to. Mind you I'm upset now that I've found out everyone got the email, I thought they'd done it just for me
1716
« on: May 29, 2008, 10:12 »
That $50 is a true quote from Photoshelter, and @ RT, in another thread on here I just read that Getty have the same witholding tax system as PS as they are US based, but I cannot confirm that.
David, Getty's tax witholding system is as I wrote above, they only withold it IF the buyer is from the US which is what US legislation requires (it forms part of the contributor T&C's), as far as I'm aware Photoshelter intend to deduct it no matter where the buyer is from which is pants. Here's the section from the Getty T&C's: "The agreement is with Getty Images (US) Inc., a US-based corporation incorporated in New York state, so contributors who are non-US tax residents will be subject to a default 30% US withholding tax on their royalties income from US clients. According to the IRS, you can possibly reduce or eliminate this withholding tax altogether if there is an income tax treaty between the US and the country you are tax resident in." and here's a section I found on Photoshelters contributor T&C's: "we will be required to withhold twent-eight percent (28%) for U.S. Tax residents or citizens and thirty percent (30%) for non-U.S. residents from your payments in order to comply with, federal requirements, and we reserve the right to do so." Notice how Getty appear to know that the 30% only needs to be deducted if the client is US based, so if that's the case why are Photoshelter deducting 30% for all sales!!!!!!!!
1717
« on: May 29, 2008, 07:17 »
To be fair it does not say "no microstockers" it says no images offered on other sites at <$50 a download, some macro's might be close to that with thier discount structures.
We consider 'microstock' to be any image provider offering licenses for less than $50
Really because getty sells images for less than $50
Their web usage license is $49
Good point Leaf (I hadn't actually read the Photoshelter waffle), and in fact every macrostock agency can sell images for less than $50 some do openly so and others as discounted, that just goes to show what Photoshelter knows about the industry! So in effect they've now ruled out every stock photographer in the world! Can't wait to tell some of the hardfast traditionlists that Photoshelter consider they're microstock photographers
1718
« on: May 29, 2008, 06:39 »
These affects are also cyclic and I am able to be forecast downloads based on solar activity.
I use a NASA program I got from my sister who works for NASA.
I ran the program for the first half of June 2008...the results were not pretty...I'm sorry to say.
Well I'm not into astrology or astronomy but I'm able to predict your downloads just by looking at your portfolio.  Mind you I wouldn't mind a copy of that program from NASA, especially as it can go foward in time, in case that's too cryptic for you it's May 2008 we haven't got to June yet!
1719
« on: May 29, 2008, 05:47 »
Hardly what I'd describe as earth shattering news, as far as I'm aware nobody really sells anything on Photoshelter anyway so it's not exactly a great loss.
I can't quite understand their marketing strategy, are they trying to compete with the big traditional macro sites (G,C,A,J) ?
If so what have they got to offer buyers that have established accounts and sales history with these guys?
As a contributor to the big 4 what are Photoshelter going to offer to persuade people to upload their exclusive images there instead of say Getty or Corbis?
They may get a few images from people 'testing the water' but that isn't going to create a large enough library to interest serious buyers, as such the sales won't be enough for any serious stock pro's to jump ship and the end result will be the demise of Photoshelter.
As things stand they're just going to end up with a few of the same shots that people have on Alamy and Inmagine, plus a few from microstockers that want to try the traditional route, again this won't bring in enough sales to keep the contributors happy.
I had a quick look at Photoshelter a while ago, decided not to bother when I saw they take a US tax cut on all images they sell from European contributors, at least Getty only take the 30% if the buyer is in the US which I can understand.
Add to the fact I'm as described above, I'll only upload my stuff to agencies where there's a track record of sales or the potential to explore a new avenue in the stock market.
Photoshelter are a 'wanna be', if you listen to the traditional stock pro's there's a 50/50 split amongst them regards microstock and whether it's good or bad, some would rather cut off their right arm than take part, other's have accepted this new (ish) source of revenue.
It appears Photoshelter are trying a cheap 'jump on the anti microstock bandwagon' approach to trying to attract contributors, they'll soon learn the one's they will attract with their 'no microstockers' rule are the one's they don't actually want!
1720
« on: May 27, 2008, 13:19 »
Got an email today:
"Hello Robert,
We saw your photo collection at .......
Would you also be interested to work with us ?
Any comments?
The MIZ
I haven't even looked at the site and yet I already know it's destiny.
1721
« on: May 27, 2008, 13:04 »
...
It's a bit like me taking the credit for when Getty dropped the $49 image, I sent them an email and they dropped it - so there you go it was down to me and not the SAA after all, at least I've got as much evidence as they have
I always had my suspicions that you were behind that.
I don't normally like to boast about it but as you know I have quite an influence over at the big G, let me know if you want a commission increase.
1722
« on: May 27, 2008, 10:49 »
I recently invited Betsy Reid to have her writers contact me directly via email or phone if they ever want some accurate info on microstock. Hope someone takes me up on that offer someday.
I wouldn't wait by your desk, the last thing she want's is accurate information! To be honest apart from the people that pay to be a member of the SAA I don't think anybody takes any notice of them, they claim to have made major breakthroughs in relations between agencies and artists but if you read into their claims you never see any real evidence that they had anything to do with it. It's a bit like me taking the credit for when Getty dropped the $49 image, I sent them an email and they dropped it - so there you go it was down to me and not the SAA after all, at least I've got as much evidence as they have
1723
« on: May 26, 2008, 18:28 »
This is an OBVIOUS mistake on the reviewers part, as he/she has no idea just how good I am.
They may not know how good you are, but luckily he/she isn't blind and can therefore see how good your images are - hence the rejections.
1724
« on: May 23, 2008, 09:08 »
I have the same problem too.
Almouts all my isolations are rejectd at istock.
But the other day i try again and voil.
This one manage to pass.
I make the path and them i use 1 pixel to feathering the image
Good shot and nice job with the shadow.
1725
« on: May 23, 2008, 05:05 »
Saving a well isolated shot as a jpeg causes rough edges because of jpeg compression, it's not a problem to designers because they can just raise their threshold to 1 instead of 0, I contacted Adobe a while ago when I was having this problem and they confirmed that if your edges are too well isolated this will happen, the only way round it is to actually degrade the isolation by feathering.
Most of the iStock inspectors understand this and won't reject when it's clear a shot is on a pure white background, however there are still some who can't understand this.
The process of feathering the isolation actually renders it harder for a designer to use, but in order to get them past some inspectors at iStock you have to make the choice.
Personally if I get a rejection like this I stick it back in and hope to get one of the better educated inspectors next time.
The thing that always makes me laugh is when they reject an isolation with a clipping path for 'rough edges' - HELLO - it's got a clipping path!!!!
Pages: 1 ... 64 65 66 67 68 [69] 70 71 72 73 74 ... 77
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
