|
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 - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94
2226
« on: July 29, 2015, 06:30 »
Nope. I found an error message this morning. The upload failed, indeed.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2227
« on: July 28, 2015, 21:17 »
I still sell more licenses before noon on Shutterstock than I do on Fotolia for the whole week. So I'm not sure where this big threat is coming from. It hasn't panned out.
It's only been a few weeks, many subscribers have year long agreements so even if 50% of Shutterstock buyers were going to leave you probably wouldn't notice for a couple more months.
Actually, as you can see in the graph I posted above, my FT RPD has increased since the Adobe announcement. Only time will tell if your somber predictions will be confirmed.
RPD isn't going to go up when people switch to Adobe. Adobe pays exactly the same for subs as Fotolia and less for many of the other sales.
Well, it does, for the time being, at least in my case. Maybe because I see more of these $0.99 sales instead of $0.29.
Like I said with just a few sales RPD can vary a lot. Maybe the OP is losing out on those $3 sales at SS and you're getting them at 99 cents from Adobe?
Or not. I might even be on track for a SS BME. Let's see how good these last 3 full days will be. In any case, July is a good month @ SS (I assume you are talking about those $2.85 ODDs, since we don't have $3 sales @ SS)
2228
« on: July 28, 2015, 21:07 »
I still sell more licenses before noon on Shutterstock than I do on Fotolia for the whole week. So I'm not sure where this big threat is coming from. It hasn't panned out.
It's only been a few weeks, many subscribers have year long agreements so even if 50% of Shutterstock buyers were going to leave you probably wouldn't notice for a couple more months.
Actually, as you can see in the graph I posted above, my FT RPD has increased since the Adobe announcement. Only time will tell if your somber predictions will be confirmed.
RPD isn't going to go up when people switch to Adobe. Adobe pays exactly the same for subs as Fotolia and less for many of the other sales.
Well, it does, for the time being, at least in my case. Maybe because I see more of these $0.99 sales instead of $0.29.
2229
« on: July 28, 2015, 21:02 »
I still sell more licenses before noon on Shutterstock than I do on Fotolia for the whole week. So I'm not sure where this big threat is coming from. It hasn't panned out.
It's only been a few weeks, many subscribers have year long agreements so even if 50% of Shutterstock buyers were going to leave you probably wouldn't notice for a couple more months.
Actually, as you can see in the graph I posted above, my FT RPD has increased since the Adobe announcement. Only time will tell if your somber predictions will be confirmed. For the time being, I have no reasons to worry.
2230
« on: July 28, 2015, 20:55 »
Uploading a 2.5GB file as we speak. So far, so good.
2231
« on: July 28, 2015, 18:44 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
So your work is not worth $1, but $2. And you claim you don't sell yourself cheap. Lol.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
There is quite a difference between $6 RPD and less than $1 RPD, not that it's great but it's much better. People wooyaying for 76 cents RPD is why all the sites RPD is going down. Next will be SS when they try to compete with Adobe.
Nope. You sell yourself cheaply, since you accept selling subs for ~$2 or less.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
It is cheap but sub sites are so popular with contributors that it's the new reality. My sub sales are still higher on average than your subs, ELs, credits sales, etc... I think it won't be long before you see your RPD going down at Shutterstock along with sales when buyers switch to the even cheaper Adobe. At some point you'll see what's happening, but being a hobbyist maybe you won't mind.
Lik and his friends are laughing at this discussion. My RPD is bigger than yours, lol.  In my world, there is no difference between selling for 38c or selling for $1. What matters is the end of the month, when you check your bottom line. So please, stop with this superiority, when, in the grand scheme of things, you are no better than the rest of us. Cheap is cheap be it a 50c or a $2 peanut. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2232
« on: July 28, 2015, 18:00 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
So your work is not worth $1, but $2. And you claim you don't sell yourself cheap. Lol.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
There is quite a difference between $6 RPD and less than $1 RPD, not that it's great but it's much better. People wooyaying for 76 cents RPD is why all the sites RPD is going down. Next will be SS when they try to compete with Adobe.
Nope. You sell yourself cheaply, since you accept selling subs for ~$2 or less. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2233
« on: July 28, 2015, 17:52 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
Funny, my subs at iStock are what I think of as the floor and still they're higher than your broken ceiling.
So your work is not worth $1, but $2. And you claim you don't sell yourself cheap. Lol. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2234
« on: July 28, 2015, 17:39 »
See the graph below with my RPD expressed in $cents.
As you can see is more than 40c. More than double, excepted for your beloved IS.
No matter how you look at it, IS is the worst agency. By far.
(I removed 123 and DT from the graph since they often break the ceiling with RPDs around 150c or more)
2235
« on: July 28, 2015, 10:29 »
2236
« on: July 27, 2015, 19:18 »
Speculative to say the least. I am one of the chosen ones cause I succeeded based on merit. You have no idea how wonderful it is to be an old timer in this new reality, I can double dip, and I do. I make a full time go of it on micorstock and I also make a full time go of it with the big boys. It's actually very entertaining to hear little kids who think they know it all and take the piss out of us old timers at every chance they get and yet they are struggling to make it all work out. You are funny. Granted, if you had the skill you would most likely be doing the same thing. Most successful photographers that I know do as it's a no brainer. Nothing stopping you is there?
Ha, ha, I love my regular job and I have no intention to become a full time photographer. I know for sure that I will never be close to make what I normally make, from photography only.
What I find interesting is that, what I get from a weekend hobby seriously competes with what some "old timers" complain about, around here. Still, I would never brag that I have "the skills", since I know that there is always something new to learn, no matter how advanced you believe you are 
Mark my words: those "funny little kids", as you condescendingly call us, will eat an ever bigger slice of you pie. And there is nothing you can do about it!
For a hobbyist you sure seem to know it all about stock photography and dedicate a fair amount of time giving comment about it, now I understand where your are coming from. But have no fear, you future is safe, I have no intention of having a regular job for my hobby. I also don't worry about other photographers dipping into my slice of the pie, competition is nothing new in the world of stock.
Perfect! Now you sound optimistic and confident. That's refreshing! Which means that all that darkness and nostalgia are just for show. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2237
« on: July 27, 2015, 17:48 »
Speculative to say the least. I am one of the chosen ones cause I succeeded based on merit. You have no idea how wonderful it is to be an old timer in this new reality, I can double dip, and I do. I make a full time go of it on micorstock and I also make a full time go of it with the big boys. It's actually very entertaining to hear little kids who think they know it all and take the piss out of us old timers at every chance they get and yet they are struggling to make it all work out. You are funny. Granted, if you had the skill you would most likely be doing the same thing. Most successful photographers that I know do as it's a no brainer. Nothing stopping you is there?
Ha, ha, I love my regular job and I have no intention to become a full time photographer. I know for sure that I will never be close to make what I normally make, from photography only. What I find interesting is that, what I get from a weekend hobby seriously competes with what some "old timers" complain about, around here. Still, I would never brag that I have "the skills", since I know that there is always something new to learn, no matter how advanced you believe you are Mark my words: those "funny little kids", as you condescendingly call us, will eat an ever bigger slice of your pie. And there is nothing you can do about it!
2238
« on: July 27, 2015, 14:51 »
It depends on your expectations. If you want to make some pocket money, sure. If you want to feed your family it is not.
This is almost word for word what I was gonna say. Perfectly summed up.
If your work is of similar quality this is true. Some of us actually feed our family and have paid of the mortgage from one microstock site alone.
I pay bills and feed family from microstock too tho it was NOT my expectation, but lucky surprise to do so well. But when I started it was easier to do. Now days just starting out is much harder and much mor competition.
It has always been difficult to do, and I think the competition today is easy. I think the competition was more before microstock, much more. You had editors back then and you really had to be in the game to make it, and your competition was people who had their game on, full on. You really were always competing with the best, and the only way to join their ranks was to have your own game on. In many ways it was the ultimate goal to know you had made it. A bit different from answering 10 brainless questions and submitting 3 images to gain "acceptance". If my cat could push a shutter with the camera set on Auto, she too could be a stock photographer.
Hundreds of years ago, only the very strong could work on the docks, unloading ships. Thank God we have cranes and forklifts these days.
Thank you so kindly for your history lesson in the past ways of a stevedore. It is slightly off topic however. If you have anything on topic and interesting to add that would be somewhat refreshing.
Oh wait, I can see it already... the reply will be along the lines of how shoes were made hundreds of years ago.
Ohh... it is so on topic! And you know it  What is NOT refreshing is seeing nostalgic post like yours, longing for the good ol' days when photography was only for the chosen ones. What is NOT refreshing is to read, every day, all these apocalyptic comments made by a handful of frustrated old timers, incapable of accepting the new reality.
2239
« on: July 27, 2015, 13:14 »
It depends on your expectations. If you want to make some pocket money, sure. If you want to feed your family it is not.
This is almost word for word what I was gonna say. Perfectly summed up.
If your work is of similar quality this is true. Some of us actually feed our family and have paid of the mortgage from one microstock site alone.
I pay bills and feed family from microstock too tho it was NOT my expectation, but lucky surprise to do so well. But when I started it was easier to do. Now days just starting out is much harder and much mor competition.
It has always been difficult to do, and I think the competition today is easy. I think the competition was more before microstock, much more. You had editors back then and you really had to be in the game to make it, and your competition was people who had their game on, full on. You really were always competing with the best, and the only way to join their ranks was to have your own game on. In many ways it was the ultimate goal to know you had made it. A bit different from answering 10 brainless questions and submitting 3 images to gain "acceptance". If my cat could push a shutter with the camera set on Auto, she too could be a stock photographer.
Hundreds of years ago, only the very strong could work on the docks, unloading ships. Thank God we have cranes and forklifts these days.
2240
« on: July 26, 2015, 11:12 »
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
What you fail to consider is how much the technology has evolved, in the past 10 years. Cameras, computers, processing software, etc are much better and afordable. YouTube has a trove of free tutorials, enabling amateurs to acquire sufficient knowledge to successfully compete with the veterans.
The quality, previously restricted only to pros, is now available to the masses.
With such an abundance of good photos, the price can only go down.
The same goes in other industries evolved through technological advancement: music, telecommunications, digital media, all are cheaper or much better than 10 years ago. Even transportation, see Uber's success. Remember that Wikipedia is virtually free and encyclopedia selling business is virtually dead. And so on.
Nevertheless, I'm sure there is still a need for pro skills, but microstock seems to be less an less the right way to sell these skills.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
I have always been truly entertained by the technology/closed shop theory. But you are right, the quality used to be restricted to pros or anyone who used to know what they were doing and not simply relying on auto this and auto that with technology covering their arse, but those were the old days of when there were editors and not inspectors.
Can you name one microstock site that actually employs editors? of course you can't.
Microstock is not unlike the modern day schooling theory of not passing/failing children, we are being set up for failure and certainly mediocrity.
100 years ago, the photographer had almost the same status as a doctor in the community. Would you want to go back 100 years to experience that feeling, instead of adapting to the present? Am not talking about those "all auto". You shouldn't be so much afraid of their competition. Have a look at those hobbyists who know what they are doing: they understand light and master photoshop, while being OK with a little fame among friends, when a site or magazine publishes their work for free. In general, while expert opinion is always welcome, why not trusting the real customers and let them decide what is popular and what not? You do rely a lot on real customers reviews when you buy from Amazon or choose a hotel, don't you? Or if you use Uber, the future "microstock" of the taxi industry. Taxi drivers would love to keep their privileges through governmental regulations and what not. It is understandable that they fight to protect what they belive they are entitled to, denying the right to amateur drivers to make an extra buck. But they will only be able to do it for so long. Don't you see a parallel with the doom and gloom in this forum? Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2241
« on: July 26, 2015, 09:43 »
...Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game?
Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser?
...
When microstock started, large numbers of customers were people and organizations who had not previously paid for stock images & illustrations. It was too expensive and difficult to buy from Getty, Corbis, Jupiter Images, et al.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock.
This is so true, before microstock came along it did bring in large numbers of customers who had not prieviously paid for stock images. Difficult to buy? No. Expensive? to a point, mostly if you were a small business trying to get caught up in the web and blog craze of that era.
The one thing you did forget to mention however is that it also brought along large numbers of photographers who had little to no experience whatsoever and starting selling photos for way way way below market value.
The professionalism in the stock industry was still valid up to this point with those very agencies you mention and so many more.
The cut throat race to the bottom sell hundreds of images for 0.25c royalties did not even exist prior to this.
None of this is about beliefs, just about observations of the last decade in microstock. And observations of watching an industry in free fall.
What you fail to consider is how much the technology has evolved, in the past 10 years. Cameras, computers, processing software, etc are much better and afordable. YouTube has a trove of free tutorials, enabling amateurs to acquire sufficient knowledge to successfully compete with the veterans. The quality, previously restricted only to pros, is now available to the masses. With such an abundance of good photos, the price can only go down. The same goes in other industries evolved through technological advancement: music, telecommunications, digital media, all are cheaper or much better than 10 years ago. Even transportation, see Uber's success. Remember that Wikipedia is virtually free and encyclopedia selling business is virtually dead. And so on. Nevertheless, I'm sure there is still a need for pro skills, but microstock seems to be less an less the right way to sell these skills. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2242
« on: July 25, 2015, 11:56 »
Im Betting On scott to turn this business around. It's the only thing we currently have that sounds Positive. He was always responsive to me for a Phone call. Wish Him the best for change. No one else i know is standing up. Fingers and Toes crossed, When I heard about Adobe I said Big Changes are coming. God , I hope so. we are stagnate.
Honestly, Scott isn't going to do anything positive for contributors. His job will be to enrich Adobe at contributors' expense. He is in all likelihood compensated based on how he impacts revenue and margins. We hurt both.
Why do people belive that everything must be a zero sum game? Why do people belive that every transaction must have a winner and a loser? What a fallacy! Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2243
« on: July 24, 2015, 18:20 »
supporting the artists who create that content could be interpreted in any number of ways, some advantageous, some neutral at best.
I like my glass half full, even though I know it is not well-taken on this forum.
Neutral support? You mean impartial? Well, it is not his company, just a good job, so it would be understandable.
No, I meant 'supporting the artists' could be advantageous to artists (e.g. he could work to negotiate a better deal), but it could mean any number of things which might or might not benefit content providers (e.g. he could organise courses to encourage and train newbies to stock, which would just keep making the pie slices smaller).
I'm not for a moment saying either of these is what he meant, just that although it sounds good, 'supporting the artists' doesn't necessarily mean the artists renumeration or other benefits would be improved.
Have your glass half full. It's your life.
Advantage to the artists who create their original work ooops sorry assets and get paid the amount that Adobe Stock offers in 4 different plans is not helping the artists at all:
1) Single image sales $10 with a royalty of $3.30
2) Ten images for one month $50 with a royalty of $1.65 each
3) Ten images a month with an annual plan $30 per month with a royalty of .99 each.
4) Subs 750 month with a royalty of .31 (this if for gold level 10,000-25,000 sales)
So it must be his way of saying he collects illustrated children's books (where the artists received $6.10 - $66.00 for the 20 illustrations) and hopes we all swallow the bed time story. Glass half full or not, this is definitely a monster under our beds.
Nothing compares to the IS monster... Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2244
« on: July 23, 2015, 12:59 »
Is there any way to find out which photo was sold via the PP? It's not listed with the regular credit sales. I agree with you that IS's royalty reporting system is frustratingly opaque.
There is a 3rd party script that runs on Google chrome. The old forum (which will go away end of this month), has the details. You can follow this link to read more about it: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352385&page=1
Since the old forum is going away, I am also going ahead and pasting the link to access the 3rd party script: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/istock-myuploads-fixes/ckloododgagaeepfamopjnjgbhbanlcg
Correct, there is also that Android app. However, both apps have a limitation in terms of sales reported. If you have "too many" sales in a month, you will only see the latest ones. In my case, the Android app list sales only down to June 10th. I can't see sales made between June1st and June 9th, let alone May. Similarly, with these 3rd party Chrome scripts, a lot of popular photos only show June sales. There is now way I can figure-out what was sold in May.
2245
« on: July 23, 2015, 10:44 »
This morning, I found my IS balance increased with some Getty sales.
However, I was only able to partially identify what exactly has been sold. This is because only half of the amount came from sales made in June, the other half being from May!
Why? I'll keep on asking this question, even if I know the answer: why is IS not able to properly report our sales? Sales made in May, reported in July and only paid in August! What a shame!
2246
« on: July 22, 2015, 13:22 »
I have had a Brazilian agriculture company purchase a food image from me, buyout license, for $150.
I have only superficially counted, but I have at least 20% of my photos that sold, so far, for more or much more than $150.
And probably ~10% broke the $150 threshold in less than 1 year.
I once asked $5k, for a photo which made me ~2K in 1.5 years, but I never heard back from the requester...
from what i understand , i think we all have the odd images that earn us a large cumulative sum.
it may sound wonderful, eg. ooh ooh, 5 images, each made me $200 to $600 to date.
and we go flag waving ya ya!
but if you ask the accounting student , she will say, what you talking about?
divide that from your total 10,000 images, or whatver number, and you still did not breakeven on your internet monthly fees. never mind pay for your equipment etc.
iow, the squeegee kids makes more money you do, because they have no expenses.
meanwhile, some newbies are going round on the forum cheering because he made $50 today
each download paying pennies. suddenly he is a winner after reading one of those anthony robbins or whatver positive thinking guru books. the only ppl who made positive thinking big time money is anthony robbins from his book sales, not from his positive thinking LMAO
how many of us remember our first book "how to be a millionaire taking photographs" 
I have no plans to become a full time stock photographer, let alone a millionaire from photography, in general.  I have only argued against selling the rights for only $150, when you can make much more than this/photo, from microstock, provided you offer quality photos. From a hobby, microstock became a weekend "job" which brings me a nicely above the minimum wage, net monthly bonus. All my photography related expenses are covered (transportation, parking, gear, software and computer upgrades and maintenance). I pay taxes on my profit. I suppose I make more than a squeegee kid from microstock alone and I don't risk falling from a tall ladder! Not bad for about 1-2 days of work/week! Licensed taxi drivers must have a similar forum somewhere, full of moaning and bitching against Uber.
2247
« on: July 21, 2015, 15:49 »
2248
« on: July 20, 2015, 16:46 »
I have had a Brazilian agriculture company purchase a food image from me, buyout license, for $150.
I have only superficially counted, but I have at least 20% of my photos that sold, so far, for more or much more than $150. And probably ~10% broke the $150 threshold in less than 1 year. I once asked $5k, for a photo which made me ~2K in 1.5 years, but I never heard back from the requester...
2249
« on: July 19, 2015, 21:38 »
This reminds me the referendum "victory" and the subsequent agreekment: https://vine.co/v/enhjKXxjPrTSent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2250
« on: July 17, 2015, 15:54 »
What do you guys do when USA Today buys your photo for a Tumblr article, and then you find the photo shared, and re-shared all over tumblr, instagram, pinterest, twitter, (even linkedin)?
Do you bother to file a DMCA complaint yourself with each one of these sites or you let it go?
Pages: 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 [90] 91 92 93 94
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
