|
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 - null
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 63
176
« on: May 19, 2009, 03:27 »
Interestingly, I haven't been transferred either (1,400 images at SV). I don't see it as a great loss, at least not for now, but when I look at images and portfolios that have been accepted, and that cover the same themes as I do, I'm not sure if I agree with them. Some themes that do very well for me are simply not covered at all. It will be interesting to see how they develop. It is a loss, uploading that many images by their snappycrappy upload ordeal. Veer might have a very good name in the MR or high end stock world, but if they inherited any of the staff and/or programmers from SV, they will fail in the microstock world. As it looks now, Veer-microstock marketplace is just a new starting ms site. It remains to be seen if they can adapt to the different market approach of microstock. SV wasn't exactly a high flier, to say the least. The worst thing for their existing contributors could be that the existing customers would turn to the microstock branch and they will be cannibalized. Tricky game. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of course, but I'm not that sure I'd like to even taste it, after the bad taste that SV left behind. After all, we already have Crestock to hate and iStock to bash. 
177
« on: May 19, 2009, 02:29 »
Wooooo! Then it's only 25 years until payment! Wrong, they are gone by then, or bought by YAY and Fotomina. Many sites (even the parking fee hosters) make a very nice income from photographers never reaching payout. Not to mention the interests and inflation.
178
« on: May 19, 2009, 02:25 »
They are the slowest paying site I submit to.
My latest payout on Featurepics (requested 2009/3/30) took amost a month.
179
« on: May 19, 2009, 01:51 »
Did anyone noticed that all his studio look like this That door is not from IKEA but from Handyman Inc. !
180
« on: May 19, 2009, 01:44 »
I agree. That's what negative search options are for. I found even an image tagged "cevapcici" with no cevapcici  
181
« on: May 19, 2009, 01:06 »
Since iStock introduced it, I mostly include nobody in shots without people visible. I use people only for groups of 3 or more, or when the people don't have the main focus. When it's a model(s) that has/ve the focus, I don't use people but person ( one, two). Finally, i use isolated (cut out) only for images that have a uniform #FFF or #000 background. Dreamstime used a clever search option as a replacement for "nobody" : they just check the presence and number of model releases attached. That won't work for editorial and blurred people in the background of course. Funny search results: nobody AND womannobody AND girlsAngels have no bodies, and that's confirmed by this shot (search nobody AND angel) :  Keywords : angel chrst color fashion full girl god hand horizontal human image jezus light motor nobody wing 
182
« on: May 19, 2009, 00:52 »
It is interesting to know that you use description for relevance. I personally think this is a smart choice. They do that already for years. Dreamstime does it too now, but a little angel just whispered in my ear that DT was the second 
183
« on: May 19, 2009, 00:33 »
At least I am in good company it seems. Although in general I seem to bad company BigStock was very slow for me too in May. On average 1-2 sales per day, I had a dry spell of 5 days last week between May 5 and 11. Normally half or more of my downloads were from the 10 same images, in a port of 1000+ - then, earlier this year I suddenly started selling newer images too. Since early April, it seems I'm back to default. My bet is they were playing with the search engine. Up till now, May has been a very slow month in general, and BigStock is still alive and kicking - no surprises, no fancy buyouts, moderate but steady sales for years.
184
« on: May 19, 2009, 00:14 »
Why would you resubmit? I would only do it if there were technical flaws that can easily be corrected, i.e. when the image had been changed.
I did it because I was instructed to do so by their support team. I also contacted them in the same way.
Ah they changed policy then. It's a bit unfair since it still count towards you AR and it was their fault.
185
« on: May 18, 2009, 21:44 »
We are talking about microstock here, right? You can argue again and again and explain why you don't like IKEA furnitures or blonde models, but the facts are that Yuri is #1 in this business. In Europe, all my furniture happens to be IKEA The lesson is not to shoot in an IKEA environment since Yuri took that market already. Where is the "jealousy"?
186
« on: May 18, 2009, 11:16 »
Do not understand. 50 Mpx? please explain to me... for example, Nikon D90 has got 12Mpx. Can I use this pictures for getty? No. The only way to get into Getty is upload 1MP cellphone pics on Flickr
187
« on: May 18, 2009, 10:54 »
Holy heck, that's a lot of overhead costs! Yes, Mr. Locke, and it gives a great idea of what not to shoot, like blonde models in IKEA pseudo-globalist living an bed rooms, hospital beds and cheering nannies in a black non-reflective wheelchair. He got a bit fat, right, after turning 30 I just wonder how he will get a tropical waterfalls, sunsets or architects in his fancy studio. The message still is, be different, at 1/10th of the cost. And the bottomline is still 0.25$ at Crestock 
188
« on: May 18, 2009, 05:38 »
The remedy is quite "simple". Do better, produce more. If everybody is doing that, it won't help Imagine everybody soon having a 65Mp Hasselblad, shooting with 10 4000w lightboxes in a 50,000$ studio, with Claudia Schiffer as business model with headset, shaking hands with Brad Pitt, and selling those shots for 0.35$ on CheaperStock - what would change?
189
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:48 »
I think I spend about 350%
190
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:41 »
1. Set a goal for X number of ideas.
2. Write them down.
3. Make them your own (ie. American Idol )
4. See them copied a gazillion times three months later at ShutterStock.
191
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:37 »
Someone just opened the gates to hell. 
The road to hell is paved with ćevapčići
192
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:33 »
I totally agree that the exclusives should be entitled to higher commissions, more uploads and fast reviews. But the quality and contents should be equal standards for all.
Agreed. My sales on IS went back to normal this month and my top sellers are again on page 1, according to relevancy of course. If a buyer wants exclusives, he can still look for it by selecting the proper search option on IS. It's a good strategy when looking for a concept and you don't want the results cluttered with images you can also find at other sites. As a low volume buyer I first look on DT, then on IS exclusive only. That way, I have an overview of what's available. If the image isn't exclusive at IS, it's better to buy it at DT than at IS since DT is cheaper. Makes sense, huh?
193
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:23 »
I had to resubmit a few times quoting results of the search and images get accepted. Of course, the first rejection still counts in the acceptance rate.
In a few cases, I didn't resubmit but objected with support about the rejection, with documentation about the (poor) coverage. The rejection was then reversed. I don't think it counts for the AR then, but I'm not sure. Why would you resubmit? I would only do it if there were technical flaws that can easily be corrected, i.e. when the image had been changed.
194
« on: May 18, 2009, 01:17 »
So yes, we do share our own intellectual property. I uploaded some 5 weeks ago but I remember having problems and error returns after a while. Not sure if they are fixed yet. I will check later again.
195
« on: May 17, 2009, 09:23 »
I never use "nobody" keyword in my images. 
I dont know, it is ridiculous to me. I think buyers never use it. If they do, they will miss a lot of good hamburgers without "nobody" keyword :p
And your hamburgers will miss a lot of good sales from buyers looking for images without people.
Lol.
196
« on: May 17, 2009, 01:58 »
I've created this tool to assist myself in keywording. Just want to share it with you all.
www.stockkeywords.com
Do you use the Princeton synonyms/cv database? If you do, it's in their terms you should credit them.
197
« on: May 17, 2009, 01:37 »
The first discussion started out very promising but eventually descended into two pages of bat signals and the like, and some people may have lost interest at that point. As more and more people voiced opinions, there was revealed to be some fundamental, and possibly insurmountable, differences in ideology about direction. Technically, it's not that difficult to make yet another stock agency. SEO and combined promo could take care of the marketing for the most part, when the big brass joined. One month exclusive lock in could attract buyers that are keen on fresh and not overused images. The main issue, like always, is in the search engine and image ranking. The contributors might have common goals in the collective, but in the battle for the front page, they will be deadly competitors. If it's a collective, that will end in bitter fights amongst ourselves of how the search engine is organized. We already had a mild preview of this when DT started to play with the image ranking default. A vested stock site can always say " this is how it is, period", but a collective with some big egos will have endless discussions, backstabbings, alliances and factions.
198
« on: May 17, 2009, 01:08 »
A search reveals that the subject is not that well covered at all. I think the problem lies with new inexperienced reviewers, so I decided to stop uploading at DT for a while. I have that problem with editorial on DT. Although my best seller there is an editorial (it was accepted early) DT very inconsistently rejected editorial later. Since it drags down your AR and hence position in the search engine, I don't upload editorial there any more. It's better to hold on to what you have. The name of the game on DT isn't port size but image level. "This is a very well covered subject in our data base or the subject of your image is too specific." A search reveals that the subject is not that well covered at all. This is a very annoying rejection reason, since every time I had it, I searched myself and it wasn't well covered at all. My guess is that reviewers don't check but just rely on their subjective gut feeling about coverage - which might be wrong. If the reviewer rejects an image for that reason, one could expect he does at least an objective search first.
199
« on: May 17, 2009, 00:26 »
What earnings? (oh wait... I only uploaded 10 and when they ruined my keywords and couldn't come up with a watermark, I deleted 7, and priced the 3 remaining at 100$. Maybe they sold, no idea, didn't check them in ages - update : no sales, deleted them - conclusion : waste of time - RIP - it was quite clear from the start it was a programming disaster - too much corporate newspeak, too little down to earth coders)
200
« on: May 16, 2009, 23:43 »
123RF earned 2.13$ for me this month, 40$ in April. I don't know what's going on there.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
