|
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 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 79
1726
« on: August 01, 2014, 15:23 »
I also don't have a problem with SS or any other agency for that matter, even Envato before the last two batches. Running at an average acceptance rate of 95% on all agencies.
I am doing this since 2006 and all I am sayings is don't over react by a sudden high rejection rate. I have experiences spells like these on most of the other agencies at some point in time. In most cases the problem will resolve itself. The biggest cause of this is often a few individual reviewers that are over critical and they will eventually align themselves with the norm of accurate reviewing or they are being replaced.
+1 good point. just bcos it happens to others does not mean it will happen to me and you. and we have not seen all those rejections. only that when i look at rinderhart's SStockportfolio, and he is affected, i question the issue. otoh, maybe u did not get Atilla and her breed of mass destruction. and here's a direct quote from Jo Ann from the other thread ...
I have participated in many threads about problems with SS inspections on non-studio shots of various kinds (and at the moment am taking a break from uploading there as I had just had it with the inconsistent inspection process). You can read them (here and in the SS forums).no complaints on Envato, bcos i have not tried it.
but re SStock tomfoolery, i will go with Jo Ann and Rinderart
1727
« on: August 01, 2014, 15:18 »
Looks like the credit ranking download is not good business strategies in the long run, is stuck in the months same performance... when I spoke with admin...how to increase sales?...the answer was they don't know what sales (random)... but also told them the reviewers are too picky and increasing the portfolio is a freak problem... in resume...not good air in there. 
a long time ago ... well, not so long ago before i fell asleep in dreamstime... i was told eveything affects your ranking; from ratio approval, partaking in their blog, anything including the kitchen sink 
I believe that was an april fools joke some years ago - bet they're sorry they did that 
arghhhh , they woke up and found it is still April 1  i think they threw themselves a curved ball with similars and the dude coming in here cocky n all, did not help the PR. although i have to credit the Support (Carmen, Eric,etc...) were all fast in response 2 ur PMs. blamed 4 many things, as Jo Ann said, Can Stock and DT , wonder boys... it is still sad because we need some viable alternative. well, i haven't tried Envato, Lee Torrens' recommended Canvas, Flickr, 500px,ImageBref ...
which one shall i pick? recommendations? i could reopen my Alamy, but i heard tell they went low-pricing too, didn't they? off topic i know, but dreamstime is noddy-nod, so hijack this thread  goofy, i buy da beer when i get something good out of the above new sites !!!
1728
« on: August 01, 2014, 14:20 »
did u read about the blackouts on the other thread? maybe that's why such a bad month for some.
1729
« on: August 01, 2014, 14:06 »
Looks like the credit ranking download is not good business strategies in the long run, is stuck in the months same performance... when I spoke with admin...how to increase sales?...the answer was they don't know what sales (random)... but also told them the reviewers are too picky and increasing the portfolio is a freak problem... in resume...not good air in there.
a long time ago ... well, not so long ago before i fell asleep in dreamstime... i was told eveything affects your ranking; from ratio approval, partaking in their blog, anything including the kitchen sink
1730
« on: August 01, 2014, 14:02 »
ok, now that i looked properly, it is not quite the same. same place differently shot. aerial shot vs canal. the aerial shot would take a lot more stabilizing and meet with other factors like the movement of the plane, airdrift,etc. canal, i would think it was taken on a ferry which is pretty stable like many we used to make on the Ferries . the vantage point is different. i guess u can say the same thing about many lifestyle micros shots vs a paid shoot. still, the extra 000 does not hurt the photographer one bit. i would not complain either buys me a lot of Curvee Brut... maybe a whole winery cellar
1731
« on: August 01, 2014, 14:00 »
Here's the canva thread. Yeah, they should be added to the poll.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/canva/
ah, that helps, cheers Tyler. so, is Mr. Torrens still with Canvas? if so good 2 here someone else is doing something for microstockers. did not read everything but i like the first answer by Lee...
35cts per use not unlimited use... or something like that. gawd, i have a lot of reading 2 do, get me another jug of ale, maggie-mae 
1732
« on: August 01, 2014, 13:48 »
I love data, I love numbers, so I would love to see stocksy jump up into the list.
Many have exclusive images on dreamstime, fotolia or are fully exclusive and still their data is in there somewhere.
would also be interesting to have data on getty, corbis etc...
How you interpret the data is then up to everybody, but no numbers no fun.
july is over, so maybe u get ur wish cobalt
1733
« on: August 01, 2014, 13:43 »
their page layout is similar to Toronto's 500px.
r they connected? anybody?
1734
« on: August 01, 2014, 13:00 »
I generally don't have a problem with rejections, but suddenly a large number of totally irrational rejections in the last two batches. I guess some new (inexperienced) reviewers were appointed. I usually can't be bothered to query the rejections. In my experience these types of problems are temporary and will resolve itself over time. When that happens I will simply re-submit those rejected images.
u complain about Envato with inexperienced reviewer? did u see the same issue here by rinderhart and on SStock own forum? pages and pages of it. so maybe we are too anal on Envato when Shutterstock contributors have been complaining the same thing there for months.
1735
« on: August 01, 2014, 12:55 »
1736
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:24 »
now i compare the numbers to my own , and i feel like drinking a very large jug of ale...
Well deserved, I guess then...
yes Michael. i was just looking at say, Lise Gagnon , who as i said is from my very own "hood" a big inspiration to me, just those two side by side numbers to extrapolate... lise gagnon 5404 548862 andresr 1894 93993 %age is almost identical... that is truly impressive . and this is after how many years with IStock till then? wow !... waitress another jug please
1737
« on: August 01, 2014, 11:02 »
At DT you can set your price for Sell the Rights at anything you want. If you choose not to click this box (a wise move) and get a request from a buyer you can negotiate. There is a recommended default based on the popularity of the image but only uninformed contributors set it to the default.
that's good too, (cheers coffee)... this way you set the price and let them talk you down to a reasonable amount that both of you find right.
1738
« on: August 01, 2014, 10:40 »
yes, an affliate of mine who was at that time exclusive with dreamstime, was approached several times for her work. they also asked to see certain ones which i don't know how she went about doing it. do you know if the buyer is legit or not, was also the first thing she asked. it is not uncommon, for a corporation to buy outright, for what? i think dreamstime default is like 300 dollars which is less than you pay a photographer for an assignment. and they already know what they get with a photograph from dreamstime costing 300, as opposed to hiring a local and not knowing if they are going to get what they want. 300 is cheap really to them, when you consider an actor pays 300 for headshots regularly . you can extrapolate and see why it is not too much to a corporate. but i think too 300 is little, when you consider SStock earns me (and all) 85 and 105 dollars for an ext license respectively, and that does not involve transfer of ownership of that photograph. so, price carefully when and if you get an offer to buy out. if that image is not earning you much, then it is as they say, money in the pocket today vs future potential of zero to  dollars. in most cases, i too would take the money today, then to wait till i grow a second beard on my lamb-chops hoping for that big dollar in the sky
1739
« on: August 01, 2014, 10:26 »
Image brief just licensed USD30,000 photo http://blog.imagebrief.com/. So it happened.
Interesting, that image is mediocre at best. The subject is spectacular tho, and most can't look beyond that for advanced, exotic concepts like "composition" I see taht all the time, some of my best sellers are my poorest shots. Just mind-numbingly boring shots selling dozen times daily.
wa, topol u say the :right-est" thing as usual. it used to be in the 8x10,4x5 view camera, mid format to 35mm days where we used to be paid handsomely for excellent work , with inspiration from greats like Karsh , Adams, Eugene-Smith, Avedon (in those fields). then as the media became more accessible, so did the standard or needs fall. analogy would be music , jazz music for example is nowhere close to what they were in that same era of photography. and as we look to our own earnings in micro, yes, it took reflects as you say, mind-numbingly boring shots, selling hundred of times, and even more mind-numbing boring shots paying biggest single download in my own portfolio. when the ones you take pains to composition for colour, shades, lighting, ambience,etc.. i think some of them are still waiting for that big payoff in the sky. what the clients take is not necessarily what we photographers would consider worth that much. as richie blackmore say in one of his concert,... lady gaga... blows everyone away in crowd pulling, but i would not even call that music. going back to the old times, we also know the masters of painting were all starving , and only after death, they became "masters". long after worm took over their corpses, after they died of lead poisoning etc... suddenly everyone calls them the great painter till today we even study them. i think photography , microstock at least, is no different. although i don't think in 200 years, we will be talking about Y*** S****** etc. then again, we might, as we still talk about Sam the Sham Wooly booly, and the Archies, Monkees,etc.. the microstock of music
back to the photograph in topic, i think they will recoup that with advertising . in the same way, why would say in his heydays of tennis, Bjorn Bork was given free Mercedez, etc as endorsement? his name makes Mercedez money in return. and i am sure they are still doing it with today 's tennis heroes.
1740
« on: July 31, 2014, 21:55 »
wow, cheers Jo Ann. i had just finished writing a PM to someone telling him how i felt you are one of the main commentors here that i keep coming back to read. whether it is your view on checking a new agency, or some heady licensing issue which zips past my brain like some rocket science and this is the sort of insight i was hoping to receive. is there really any hope for the future of microstock or are we, as according to some other thread, headed for disaster, since Shutterstock is more or less unchallenged with the absence of Istock , who used to be the only likely contender to dethrone SS. ie. until it self-destruct when it was sold to Getty. Yes, personally, money is the impetus, and with what little time i have to assign to microstock, i find only SStock has been making it worth my while to upload anything. still, lately, i find that the new images are not going anywhere, (as i look at the graph of the past 6 months, it truly looks like they are invisible). but the old sellers still make it worth my while to prepare myself for autumn to maybe upload new work to SStock when the season of selling restarts. i think too, dst shot themselves in the foot when they started to become more like a social media, having silly things like LIKE, add to facebook,etc. and to top it all, telling you that anything more than two similars are not wanted . they more or less cut their selling potential by reducing their future inventory. it is no surprise they are a sorry site. i am not affected much there, but i had several affliates who gave up all the other sites to become exclusive with dt . needless to say, they do not consider me a friend anymore for introducing dst to them (kicking myself here up my backside). so i take it that not many of today's top 15 are from 2005,huh? lastly, it is good consolation to at least know from your own experience, that Shutterstock today is giving contributors something worthwhile, as you said, $82 license= your entire Sept earning in 2005.
yes, i did get $82, once in a while, and i was complaining why it was not too often.
maybe i should have been there in 2004 to appreciate SS more today
ying and yang, let's hope the better outweighs the worse. Cheers again Jo Ann
1741
« on: July 31, 2014, 20:43 »
yes, all my (what little remains) hair is gray now and I weigh about 100 lbs more 
yes, and taking Mr.Locke 960,000 dls to juxtapose your 100 lbs, i would say u you also earned more money from microstock to gain weight seriously, i actually started out trying to find who the top 15 sites were on the right of this column in 2005, but ended up finding all these other infos. how much of the 15 sites of retained their positions and where are they now.
1742
« on: July 31, 2014, 20:20 »
1743
« on: July 31, 2014, 19:59 »
i just found a few interesting webpages on some of our famous ppl who are still with us on MSG... snippets:----- 2005 sjlocke IStock 864images 21271 dls 2008 dreamstime Yuri Arcurs 7769 38729 dls lisafx 3128 17649 elenathewise 5359 18250 istock lise gagnon 5404 548862 andresr 1894 93993 lee torrens blog 2007 09 flickr the outrageously successful photosharing site sold to Yahoo. everyone is waiting to see whether they allow members to commercialize their portfolio. now i compare the numbers to my own , and i feel like drinking a very large jug of ale... very very strong ale  i take it that those numbers are of Mr. Locke,etc at their early stage of microstock. and today, we are still looking to Flickr to commercialize their contributors portfolio. that's 6 to 10 years ago. what do you think? has the business changed much?
1744
« on: July 31, 2014, 19:12 »
http://www.shutterstock.com/labs/palette/?image_type=photo&keyword=condominiumi just stumbled into what SS has in Spectrum, where u sort images in shades of the spectrum , in case one needs to match one's publication or page with a certain color. but i also found this one, which is just as awesome, especially when one of the images there is mine. if u r a buyers, i like to know if u use this? i ask because i wonder if knowing that these whatucallit??? color sorters??? is part of your criteria to finding our images. if so, maybe this, along with keywords, is yet another factor one should consider. as already we know certain colours tend to be favoured as you peruse the top selling images. still, it's something i can play with on a rainy day
1745
« on: July 31, 2014, 18:34 »
not to worry, a long time ago, i remember Lise Gagnon , from my own province and country, went into the local store to pick up a camera. she had , according to her story to us, no idea what to do with that camera. last time i checked, she sold her millionth download with Istock. and still just as helpful as ever, when you see her and speak to her. we all started somewhere the same way. me too, in the days when dinosaur roamed, i too had to start at slowly. to: etudiante_rapide
which agence you mentioned must be TPG, I have contacted with them. Thank you.
look to the right of this page, under Sponsor... the middle of the page. the gif orange ad.."we got Asia covered". this one. click the ad and go there via Tyler's link here i do it for you http://www.motionelements.com/?utm_source=microstockgroup&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=bottom%2Bright&utm_campaign=artists
1746
« on: July 31, 2014, 18:08 »
whether we pay this for it is moot. but the good news is that there is still someone willing to pay that kind of money for you or me. the secret is find him/her and having that image.
still, a rare proof (no pun intended) to dispell the going trend that photographs are only worth pennies.
1747
« on: July 31, 2014, 18:04 »
I agree with Sean on this. It's an interesting concept but it mostly seems that they are getting a lot of photogs to shoot directed concepts on spec instead of assignment. Tying up the rights for extended periods is another downfall. I think it will just drive down the market for medium range assignment photography since they can get directed shoots in bulk at a lower cost. Then again, if you are indeed just using images that would not get sold otherwise, it's found money.
+1 highlighted points
1748
« on: July 31, 2014, 16:58 »
i know, it was just anyoing at least in Alamy even if it takes time they review all submission at once and not one by one
yes, but as i said, due to cutback, maybe they only have one reviewer with one hand tied to the chair, and reviewing ... one by one by one by one
1749
« on: July 31, 2014, 16:55 »
i was with them ,as pointed out in the other thread of CST, but like the other CST (crestock??? lol), they were as demanding as SS at the beginning. only that they don't get the earnings that comes with this strict curation. so i closed my account. but during that time, i noticed they took everything that is isolated ..whether it is a cup of coffee or a ballerina or CEO, and no, they don't like flowers, landscapes and never a shallow depth of field. in fact SS still don't either (shallow DOF).
also, when i was living where they were based, most of the photos outside their office were mostly squirrels and sundry, (photo magazine type photos). it is a one man business, and it is a good company but i did not find it worth my while since SS is earning the money for me on those images too.
but yes, i love to see CST succeed, as the owner , if he is still there, was pretty decent chap.
but decent chap, we have lots of them ... all to the right with single digit . still i wish them well.
.. as i see alot of my old colleagues are still giving Canstock the benefit of the wait.
maybe it is because they are not selling much that they are still trying to raise the bar,
hoping the quality will attract new buyers.
it sure beat those which approve everything that moves.
1750
« on: July 31, 2014, 15:56 »
It over for me on the 1st with my sales performance
it ain't over till the fat lady sings (to quote my friend from the other thread).
Pages: 1 ... 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
