|
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 - Pixart
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 131
1876
« on: June 06, 2009, 00:27 »
I'm out. But is there a strategy we should play? Should we add the photos with 0 sales, give them some momentum and take them out of the subs pool? Many of these are popular photos but they were never given favor by the search engine gods on that particular upload day.
1877
« on: June 06, 2009, 00:22 »
I've had 2 sales there this week and that's the first time since, well... ever.
1878
« on: June 05, 2009, 10:29 »
No lagging today for me, I noticed the difference before I even saw this thread.
1879
« on: June 05, 2009, 10:22 »
Don't get me wrong - I am upset by these issues also, but...
An artist hangs a canvas in a coffee shop and sells it on consignment - but later the coffee shop is dinged back because the credit card was stolen. The coffee shop did everything properly by verifying the card through their credit card terminal. Should the coffee shop take the loss or should the artist?
1880
« on: June 04, 2009, 11:47 »
At the moment very slow, but there's 100 users on the site. Does that make a difference?
1881
« on: June 04, 2009, 11:35 »
I forgot if you can edit the keywords after acceptance in DT. In case you can, just delete all keywords,descriptions and titles or change them to something nonsensical and just become exclusive with IS. If the pictures can not be found on DT they are effectively not for sale anymore.
just my 1.5 cents
Good way to take a stand, but if he's trapped there why not make some moola for the next 6 months.
1882
« on: June 04, 2009, 11:21 »
I do have a right to ask questions if you see it as complaing then that is your problem. a complaint would be me saying why in the past 2 weeks has DT taken back sales due to credit card fraud?
Another thing unique to DT....see! that's what's called complaing
Don't kid yourself. Istock will do the same, they have reversed credits in my account.
1883
« on: May 31, 2009, 01:02 »
This was omitted from the above post. Note the line I've bolded: A last note: our search engine keeps updating and its relevancy now emphasizes the quality of the content more than ever before. We try to keep the right balance between new images and new contributors vs. popular images and older contributors. Recent changes try to favor less the new images (we found out they were too overexposed) and provide buyers with more diversity, without ignoring relevancy. Some of our contributors have seen their revenue double in the last months, while others were affected. Rest assured that we keep an eye on all factors, but also do note that competition that is becoming more aggressive. Do your best to provide the best stock you can and do your best to keep improving!
1884
« on: May 31, 2009, 00:56 »
Deleted: there is another thread on the subject.
1885
« on: May 28, 2009, 10:55 »
If they are withholding taxes SS will then have to send us an official annual statement of earnings won't they? Up here in Canada it is a Federal document called a T-4 which has earnings, payroll taxes, etc. Doesn't that kind of make us employees instead of independent contractors?
1887
« on: May 27, 2009, 11:22 »
I was pissed at my 4 year old for knocking my camera and breaking a $40 lens hood. Then I realized it could have been the $1500 lens and I was happy.
My girlfriend was in New York with her Rebel and they smashed the UV filtre. Since she knows absolutely nothing about that camera, she kept on walking around taking photos anyway and I'm amazed at how well they turned out with this shattered piece of glass on the front. You see she's a 6 figure finace wizzard but not bright enough to remove the shattered piece of glass from the front of her lens. I did it for her when they got home and blew out the shatters - amazingly, the lens seems perfect. God, she makes me laugh, one of the smartest chicks I know - but....
1888
« on: May 26, 2009, 14:22 »
So many things are going on. This funding. The PhotoXpress launch. The new CEO (sorry, forget the Istock dude's name at the moment). Since PhotoXpress just came out this week and since they have disclosed virtually nothing about the site.... perhaps they are taking the approach of a a crack dealer. Give everybody a taste of the crack and lure them in. I can't possibly fathom what the benefit of that site is as it is today with no revenue. There has to be a big picture that we are not privy to. "Customers" will have to eventually realize how limited free sites are and want to buy something better. I have only skimmed their terms (as a photographer not a customer). When you sign up for free downloads, are you really signing up for something else?
I used to work in the theatre, and shortly before they filed for Chapter 11, a big Hollywood producer came in like a white night and infused a ton of money. Then they found out about the Securities fraud etc. and the business was forced into bankruptcy. (Yup, bad investment.) Another reason for the cash infusion may be that FT just isn't doing well. It's easy to say that we get such a low % they must be raking in the bucks - but who really knows.
1890
« on: May 25, 2009, 20:29 »
Duh... 14-1's 5-2's and 1-3.
1891
« on: May 25, 2009, 20:17 »
My last 20 sales
15 subs
others 1 - 6 credits.
1892
« on: May 23, 2009, 16:57 »
December was worse, but that was really really bad. If it wasn't for a few dozen sub sales with keywords local to my my area, this would be my worst month in 2 years. And to think 60 days ago was my BME on DT.
1893
« on: May 22, 2009, 22:12 »
Who exactly is photos.com pushing? I just did a search for "outdoor sport" and the first 3 pages are pretty god awful, all from the same golf series, then the next 3 pages look like work of the same person, colours are just horrible and not enticing at all. I wonder why this poor quality is getting the most prominence, maybe it's one of their commissioned catalogues that they make 100% on? The next search I did was "fisherman" and most of the photos on the first 2 pages were of the same dude in a lumberjacket. The next search was "box" and the first few pages had the same 3 chicks holding Christmas and valentines boxes. I would expect a brown cardboard box on the top of the first page. Nope.
1894
« on: May 22, 2009, 21:56 »
Who did that awesome burglar illustration in the article?
Oh yeah, it was me. 
It is awesome. Wish I could draw like you 
1895
« on: May 22, 2009, 15:50 »
For the next 3 weeks it's a 6 minute drive 4 nights a week to shoot a soccer League.
35 minute drive to shoot a League in the city the other days.
20 minutes to my lab for pickups, but I tend to loiter and chat while I'm there, so add another 15.
For the rest of the summer... look for me at the neighbor's pool 2 doors down.
Most of my work is close to home or sitting on my butt in front of the computer.
1896
« on: May 21, 2009, 20:58 »
I hope these words don't haunt me some day, but
25 cents?*!?**! Screw You.
1897
« on: May 21, 2009, 20:45 »
Walking away from IS can take away the stress and frustration, but you're walking away from a a gold mine. Trust me - most of us have struggled with one issue or the other with them. I rarely submit there and they reject half of what I do, but they sure know how to sell those photos they do select. You get some photos now and then that will sell hundreds of times. Even at 20% it makes it worth the frustration.
1898
« on: May 16, 2009, 16:08 »
SS does accept this style, but I think you owe it to the buyer to mark "photo illustration" in the description. StockXpert used to, not sure if they would now as they have changed reviewing standards in the past few months.
1899
« on: May 15, 2009, 16:57 »
John Deere's green and yellow color scheme, the leaping deer symbol, and John Deere are trademarks of Deere & Company.
So... really, if I change the wheel wells and the yellow stripe to just green, it is no longer a color scheme? Not that I'm inclined to do so.
1900
« on: May 15, 2009, 16:46 »
They have 10 photos of a particular subject, and those photos rarely or never sell. Therefore, it must be a well covered subject with poor returns. But everytime I have been inclined to look to see if it really is a well covered subject those photos don't sell because they are pure crap. Why don't they approve the new photo that was actually taken for a desgner by today's standard stock photographer... it has copy space, it is uncluttered, it has good colour, it is appealing to the eye... and delete one of the old crap ones that are essentially invisible to a designer?
... still scratching my head.
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 131
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
