|
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 - Digital66
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 23
201
« on: November 16, 2013, 19:41 »
Your images are simply not stock-oriented. Nature images tend to be high in supply and low in demand and only the very best (and luckiest) will make worthwhile sales.
Isn't it surprising IS accepted all those images? What a U turn!
It's ridiculous! This is what happen when there are no upload limits and no QC. Personally, I'm sick of all these new snapshoters flooding iStock with their big portfolios full of crappy images. My advice to any fresher: Stop flooding the site with all your snapshots!!!You are not going anywhere doing it.
202
« on: November 14, 2013, 22:42 »
i'm in favor of a total internet-wide ban on smilies.
unfortunately i must admit often it's easy to misunderstand what someone is writing, is he angry ? is he ironic ? is it a joke ?
so they use smilies, just in case, but some people is really abusing this thing, and what about the invasion of the SMS slang ?
it's a tragedy and yes, not professional at all, if you can't write without smilies it means you can't write properly at all ! fact.
Almost as annoying as people who don't bother to capitalize anything. (I would wink here, to let you know I am teasing, but apparently that would offend some people)
203
« on: October 31, 2013, 20:14 »
I can't tell you for certain what % of people are up or down, I can just tell you for sure that not every exclusive is down. Even reading the monthly earnings thread you'll see people report that sales fell 40% compared to last year but royalties are the best ever. Some people report only iStock downloads, some only iStock earnings, some count Getty and the PP too. It's not always easy to tell what's being reported.
I must agree with tickstock here. Not every exclusive is down. Most of those doing well don't participate in the monthly earnings threads. My own personal reason for not participating in those threads is that in my experience, reporting a positive month is an effective and fast way to attract more copycats. Lesson learnt!
204
« on: September 03, 2013, 23:25 »
I risk saying that the poll will become more and more irrelevant, this month I only added results for SS per example (usually I enter over 30/40 agencies), I just don't look at the poll with serious eyes anymore because its very different for everybody, if I have one agency doing very well why should I tell the "all world" about it? as time goes I believe that contributors will give less and less information at least regarding earnings, I have recently found an agency that was rarely talked about here and it looks very exciting
Good to know now you keep your cards closer to your chest. I hated how you used to reveal so much information in your blog.
205
« on: August 04, 2013, 22:19 »
People can have opinions and argue semantics all day and all night. Professional athletes are people who receive money. Simple and done. Amateur status vs Professional is based on one simple criteria. Did you get paid to do what you do.
Persons receiving financial return, are professionals.
That's just your opinion.
206
« on: July 27, 2013, 12:03 »
No, I mean that the entire collection will still be posted at peopleimages (which undercuts IS). That contradicts the IS press release that IS is, and I quote:
"... now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found."
Istock has partner programs. Thinkstock, Photos.com, Flickr etc. So now www.peopleimages.com is one of those. What is the problem? Why do you have such a hard time with that?
"Early next week we will be removing the option for Exclusives to opt in to the Partner Program. "
Posted by Lobo on Jul 9 3:28PM http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354886&page=1 So... ?
207
« on: July 24, 2013, 21:04 »
OMG!  Some people here have really no idea what they are doing.
208
« on: July 18, 2013, 23:11 »
209
« on: July 12, 2013, 18:22 »
I dont use much postprocessing. At the begining i will try with fotolia.
I haven't got 50$ from them last month (with 3540 pictures)
That looks bad..
Thank to you all for your answers. Then I think stock photography is not the right thing for me...
Wise decision.
210
« on: July 09, 2013, 23:50 »
SERIOUS TIP  : If your sales at iStock are bad, try with a new name for your portfolio. That might solve all your problems. After all, Yuri's been doing it: His old portfolio with the name Urilux maybe was not doing very well, so he/they tried with Yurilux, but that one didn't help either (Has anyone here tracked his daily sales during the last weeks? -poor). So, today it was time to try a new name: yuri. Just yuri. Now, if that doesn't help even Yuri, then we are all scre*** 
211
« on: June 26, 2013, 13:18 »
Personally, I can't think of a good reason for non-exclusives to keep uploading.
For better or for worse, iStock still has sales, even for my (very) small portfolio
I can upload to all the other sites, and make no money for my effort, or I can upload to iStock and make some money.
50% of $0 = 0
20% of $1= .20
Until my Symbiostock sites generate the same or better return ( where I get 100% commission) I will put my images and effort into what pays.
In your case not even 20%. But I guess you are happy with your 15%. And honestly, your 6 sales in six months is the same as nothing.  Sharpshot is right, there is no good reason for non-exclusives to keep uploading.
212
« on: June 20, 2013, 23:21 »
Try Urilux.
Does Roche know about it?
http://www.micglobal.co.uk/roche-urilux-system-i1006.html
"The Urilux 100 is the smartest test reader most suitable for rapid screening of diseases of the kidney and the urogenital tract, carbohydrate metabolism disorders (diabetes mellitus) and liver diseases and haemolytic disorders. "
Must admit the name 'Urilux' does sound more like a painful medical condition than a stock photographer.
Your right actually. Its Latin and stands for incontinence, comes from incontinecium-fatale.
That must explain the recent change from Urilux to Yurilux
213
« on: June 15, 2013, 18:30 »
Also the account of two danish contributors ( pixdeluxe and laflor ) yesterday was been merged into globalstock ...47000 images , 2300 agency files and almost 400 vetta(s) not bad
just to clarify the account is the merge of pixdeluxe + laflor + shapecharge (3 danish istock contributors)
who wants to be danish?
sorry just another one :
gradyreese + laflor + pixdeluxe + shapecharge .....who's next? 
I guess... kupicoo, Squaredpixels, and steex (Like laflor, they are real people, but I'm sure they work for/with Yuri)
214
« on: June 13, 2013, 16:38 »
All my exclusive plus are now in Signature, including the better-sellers, only my old Vettas are in Sig+, including the lower sellers.
Wonder if they'll tell us when the process is completed.
Collections have not changed yet. Only the price slider has changed. We have to wait.
215
« on: May 24, 2013, 07:57 »
I am quite sure ANY agency you give the axe will be very relieved...
at least they replied, some other agencies dont even answer to emails.
I'm not surprised other agencies have better chosen to ignore your emails.
216
« on: May 23, 2013, 14:32 »
Come on! What were you expecting? It was all your fault. Duh!
217
« on: May 21, 2013, 12:59 »
Jon is a computer programmer first and a photographer based on the need to fill his new web application with content/images. He has a B.S., Computer Science 1997 and B.S. Mathematics 1997
he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.
seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?
kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.
That's true! He's done a big damage in the industry. It's good to see Yuri's work is not available at SS anymore. It's kind of sad to see photographers with high quality portfolios selling their images for just a few cents. If I ever had no choice, and had to sell images on SS to make some money, it would only be my isolated-on-white shots and other similar garbage.
218
« on: May 20, 2013, 23:06 »
Beside all technical requirements, shooting with models is not easy at all! The image of the week comes to help us with a great and simple example of how to do it right.
Thanks for joke of the day! Seriously!
219
« on: November 28, 2012, 10:29 »
looks like I will be dropping from 19% in 2013. No way to accumulate RCs when the site is dead.
I am sorry to hear you'll be probably dropping from 19%. It's not been a good year for some people at iStock. However, iStock is anything but dead. This game is just getting harder to play.
220
« on: November 28, 2012, 10:09 »
Cash sales are included.
221
« on: November 06, 2012, 07:52 »
IS is just as affected as you. Its money out of their pocket as well. And you cannot prevent chargebacks. Period.
What a naive comment!
222
« on: October 09, 2012, 12:54 »
contributors can discuss things without being banned or having content deleted
Not in my experience!
223
« on: October 04, 2012, 20:24 »
My guesses:
- High prices and much competition
- More competition
- Display of real prices
- Bad Contributor treatment and the consequences
- Global economic downturn
- Upload limits and stupid rejections
This is sudden sharp decline in sales we are talking about. Many of us were doing really great until September 5th. Neither prices, nor competition, nor contributors' feelings towards iStock, nor economy, have caused this crisis. An regarding upload limits and rejection: They are necessary. Otherwise the site would be full of garbage, and also the factories would try to flood the site.
224
« on: October 01, 2012, 11:27 »
do you know of a survey or statistic data that shows who are the customers who buy and download photos, illustrations and vectors from the microstock sites? maybe some list that tells what kind of companies or persons frequently buy microstock.
please provide a list or data, don't answer with "methinks" raw descriptions. surely this question has been asked before, and if there is already a topic just insert the link. thank you.
Sir, yes sir!
225
« on: September 26, 2012, 08:32 »
Copycats or just working for the same boss?
*removed*
Among many others.
Sniff, sniff... It smells fishy
admin edit: we shouldn't link to other's portfolio pointing fingers.
Stupid Censorship! Ok. No links... *************************************** Copycats or just working for the same boss? kupicoo (iStock exclusive) Squaredpixels (iStock exclusive) steex (iStock exclusive) annebaek (iStock exclusive) And of course we can't forget laflor (iStock exclusive) Among many others. Sniff, sniff... It smells fishy ***************************************
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
