|
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 - LDV81
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
201
« on: December 04, 2016, 07:16 »
I'm no expert in the software you speak, of but if you need six extra frames then they've got to come from somewhere... so you're either going to have duplicate frames, or interpolated frames...
Why? I would expect that the conversion process just changes the duration of each frame, for example from 1/30 s to 1/24 s, or vice versa. But I am not sure, I have never done it. As long as the agencies accept all common frame rates or don't have a preference, I don't really care much.
202
« on: December 03, 2016, 19:02 »
Thanks, so I guess, this "geo-location" search is just a conspiracy myth...
Maybe? Maybe not? I know that SS sends cookies from what I search and I get ads to match that.
Yeah. For the life of me, I can't understand why they spend money on ads trying to convince me that I should buy my own photos from them..
203
« on: November 30, 2016, 14:02 »
I am not against upload limits. If this helps to get my files processed in time it is much better than having to wait 6 months for inspections. Dissolve is a very small agency, so maybe this is the best way forward for them. It also allows them to keep taking new contributors.
I have never applied to Dissolve, they got themselves a very unpleasant reputation when they first came here. Not sure, how they work with people now.
But upload limits are not a serious issue or anything that would put me off. It seems like a useful measure to handle an exploding queue.
Yes. +1
204
« on: November 29, 2016, 01:32 »
205
« on: November 28, 2016, 23:23 »
The photos are pretty good, but if you don't make it easy for buyers to find them, they won't sell.
In stock you can't sell things which buyers don't see. And the competition in this subject matter is gigantic. Gigantic!
You have a very good eye for compositions, but as others mentioned, the image descriptions/keywords are quite poor (for stock photos), honestly.
206
« on: November 28, 2016, 03:54 »
If I was still making money and seeing growth from my efforts I may not have burnt out. I quit about three years ago after five years of submitting. When I first started, I got really motivated when I saw revenue increasing consistently when I added new images. It was awesome for a few years until the plateau hit and then the drop. The hamster wheel. I still experiment with stuff like mobile to see if there's anything new that makes it worth my time but haven't found it yet. I spend my time producing stuff outside of micro where I still find profits and growth. I also license my own stuff through my site.
Like Mantis said, things are shifting. Up until a few years ago equipment and quality requirements were so high it prevented a lot of people from entering micro. Now the requirements are so low that anyone with a cellphone can join micro which opened up the competition floodgates to just about anyone anywhere in the world. And micros will continue squeezing people until they find that fine line where taking away too much negatively affects their financials. Hasn't happened yet and there's no bottom in sight.
Wish it wasn't this way because in the beginning I was so excited. I actually thought I could live off of this with just a few thousand images. Now I'd need tens of thousands and it's not viable.
Great analysis as usually, Paulie. Sums up my feelings and experiences, too. I thought I was riding the gravy train. Then the train derailed.
207
« on: November 28, 2016, 03:22 »
I actually saw a pick up in the last couple weeks and even an EL sale - my first there. I'm hoping it becomes a trend.
There are no "trends" at DT. There are "cycles", the search results change on a rotating basis. My monthly sales are similar to a sine wave (sinusoid). Some periods your stuff gets promoted and appears on the first pages, other periods you get pushed back. That's the way it goes at this agency. I don't have problems reaching payouts, as a matter of fact right now I am accumulating earnings and don't cash out yet. I will cash out next year for tax reasons. I suppose the likelihood that they will go bankrupt in the meantime is rather low.
208
« on: November 27, 2016, 16:48 »
they have locked down submissions for everyone and are going to remove portfolios. only high quality content will be allowed. they will stop reviewing and give approved authors control over content and pricing. this project will take 12 months to complete,
LOL! As far as I am concerned, they can just close down the whole shop.
209
« on: November 27, 2016, 14:30 »
I am a noob and i am trying to get into stock and I dont understand what its happening. I see people complain about revenue and that they stopped producing years ago and my question is why are they still here wasting time on this forums ? I dont mean to be rude but something does not sound right to me  ....
You'll also see war veterans meet up long after the war is over... Some people just like to hang out together and talk about their glory days. Glory days, when they were younger and ELs at Shutterstock were as common as sunny days... And when you were getting instant downloads... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vQpW9XRiyM
210
« on: November 04, 2016, 18:28 »
You can also send a petition to mosquitos asking not to bite you.
It doesn't make much sense, because biting people is simply what mosquitos do. Fleecing photographers is what Getty do, they have always done so and probably always will, it is their raison d'tre. You can't change their DNA.
Mosquitos need your blood, and so does Getty. I don't send petitions to mosquitos. I avoid their territory or use a mosquito net or a repellent.
211
« on: November 03, 2016, 11:38 »
Who should we address the petition to?
To Santa Claus. A positive outcome would be more likely in this case.
212
« on: October 11, 2016, 16:17 »
All iStock exclusives are exclusive, but some are more exclusive than others.
213
« on: September 26, 2016, 13:41 »
Getty caring about the livelihoods of photographers? Against Google... What weird times... I think the end is nigh...
214
« on: September 25, 2016, 17:25 »
Contributors' names and locations were "confidential information", at least it was labeled as such on DTs website. And now what, out of the blue, they decided that the right way to handle "confidential information" is to reveal it to the whole world, just like this, without even asking the affected people.
Until now, I perceived Achilles as an intelligent person. After this stunt I changed my mind. Hard to trust these guys anymore.
For the sake of "transparency" and "trust" they should also publish the entire list of their customers with their locations and the list of files that they have licensed, without asking them for permission. Let me guess, ain't gonna happen...
215
« on: September 23, 2016, 13:02 »
Sellers have proven they can't be trusted with that info. by bothering buyers. It's what you get when you crowd source content.
Oh, but revealing the contributor's identity to the whole world, including all the world's scammers and crooks is OK? Some people have been uploading pictures of their kids and kids of their friends, on the assumption that their identity is not revealed to the whole world. And now what, a few fussy buyers complained and DT revealed this information, just like this, without any warning or permission from the affected contributors. If the buyers have problems with trustworthiness, then it is a problem of the agency, not the contributors. After this stunt I lost my trust in DT. If a buyer doesn't like the fact that some contributors don't show their identity, very well. They can go to FT, SS, IS, 123. Oh, these agencies also have a privacy option... But somehow only DT buyers have a problem with that. Therefore it is the agency's problem.
216
« on: September 23, 2016, 12:12 »
I would like to have my business contact information widely available. It's my business, after all.
Some people have also businesses in other fields and might not want to be associated with the micros.
Just to play devil's advocate here... Does an agency have more responsibility to help someone maintain some sort of subterfuge or to be more transparent about the people/businesses that provide artwork to their company?
This is absolute nonsense. The agency knows exactly who the image supplier is, they can request a copy of the ID, whatever. If the buyer has important reasons to know who the copyright holder is, they can contact the agency and ask for this info. They buyers enter a contractual agreement with the agency, not with the contributors.
That's what transparency is though. It's letting buyers know without having to ask because they can already see it.
In that case I want to know who buys my images and where they live, so that I can monitor if their usage complies with the license conditions. Will DT reveal this info? I don't think so.
217
« on: September 23, 2016, 10:27 »
I would like to have my business contact information widely available. It's my business, after all.
Some people have also businesses in other fields and might not want to be associated with the micros.
Just to play devil's advocate here... Does an agency have more responsibility to help someone maintain some sort of subterfuge or to be more transparent about the people/businesses that provide artwork to their company?
This is absolute nonsense. The agency knows exactly who the image supplier is, they can request a copy of the ID, whatever. If the buyer has important reasons to know who the copyright holder is, they can contact the agency and ask for this info. They buyers enter a contractual agreement with the agency, not with the contributors.
218
« on: September 23, 2016, 09:01 »
I would like to have my business contact information widely available. It's my business, after all.
Some people have also businesses in other fields and might not want to be associated with the micros.
219
« on: September 23, 2016, 09:00 »
A lot of agency list my name under the copyright. It doesn't seem like anything new. It would be annoying if they showed my address or phone number, but name and location seems like good basic info to have.
They show it because you chose to show it. Every other major site has an option to show only the username and not the identity. Many people have legitimate reasons not to reveal their identity on microstock sites.
220
« on: September 23, 2016, 08:04 »
https://www.dreamstime.com/thread_45679For now, it doesn't affect all contributors but only' test rabbits' (who were not informed or asked for permission before). They claim it will improve the sales, because some buyers have allegedly complained that they can't see the real names and locations of the copyright holders. For crying out loud, no other major microstock site does it, so how can it improve sales? I think some lawyers must teach these guys the hard way why the right to privacy matters, because they apparently don't get it.
221
« on: September 15, 2016, 12:42 »
Thanks for replying, so what do you guys suggest?
Try to find a time machine. It may be second-hand, as long as it works. Then go back to 2008 perhaps to 2007 or sooner and upload from there. You will have lots and lots of views, downloads, whatever. When you're done, you can rent the time machine to me, I will pay you great money.
222
« on: September 14, 2016, 16:00 »
I price the vast majority of my HD clips at $75 and 4K at $150-250.
The reasoning behind that is that I prefer when buyers buy my clips from P5 because of the royalties, but at the same time I don't want to (significantly) undercut other major agencies, because when they react and undercut me, I will lose the most.
223
« on: September 14, 2016, 15:55 »
No it doesn't. Curiosity about the correct price point for your work signals nothing more than being sensible. Is $79 the holy grail of pricing? Does it automatically result in optimal sales numbers? What data do you have to support this?
[...]
Your professional opinion on the optimal minimum pricing, just happens to coincide with 'what Shutterstock charge'.
Shutterstock is one of the market leaders. If they sell for HD for $79 they probably have research results that show that most customers are fine with that price level. If the agency is performing well with these prices over a long period, I would say that it is not "too expensive" but probably close to the sweet spot. AFAIK Fotolia has similar prices and they are also doing well.
224
« on: August 04, 2016, 14:40 »
Well, what goes around comes around. I hate to lose the $400 a month I make there if they were to have to close, but they reap what they sow. In the end they should really care, right? After all, money isn't everything....or something like that. 
If they close one day, that void would be filled by other agencies. There is a certain demand for images at any time and it must be fulfilled. It is hard to imagine a more parasitic creature in the stock business than G., so in the long run most content producers should benefit in such scenario.
225
« on: August 02, 2016, 02:13 »
Your pain threshold is very high, my friend, if you still upload there and follow DeepMeta updates.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
