|
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 - TheSmilingAssassin
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 17
226
« on: May 06, 2011, 21:33 »
That's odd, as I thought the 5th sale was still level 1... In fact I had the 6th sale of an image today (level 2), and the 5th sale was level 1 on 3/22/2011 with 2010 credits.
After some reflection I suppose that still fits what you are saying, as it had sold 4 times before. Just a different way of looking at the number of times it has sold before vs. the number of that specific sale.
You're right, the 5th sale is sold as level 1 and I agree that it's wrong to do that. I've seen a few complaining about this issue in the forums before but Dreamstime doesn't see it that way. All I'm saying is that their pricing structure download levels have remained the same... not that I think they're correct or that I agree with them lol. Nikitu explains it on this thread. http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_22673
228
« on: May 06, 2011, 20:50 »
When were those flickr shots uploaded? It took my images more than a year for tineye to find even one of them. Tineye takes forever to index them.
Some of them are 3 years and older. I guess it doesn't matter. Some photographers do use it to direct the visitors to their smugmug site where they sell the prints etc., others just do it for fun.
Just to clarify, I meant it took Tineye more than a year to find my microstock images. Three years for flickr, that's a bit of concern for serious photographers. I hope Flickr hasn't worked a way to get around Tineye because if that's the case, others will work it out too.
229
« on: May 06, 2011, 20:29 »
My only real complaint with the level 0 is the 25%. That doesn't make the sale any cheaper, it just gets us less. If they had gone with the level 0 scheme without the 25%, I'd be 100% for it.
What's next, level -1 with 20%, and then level IS with 15%?
Did they change level 1 to 1-4 downloads, it used to be 0-5 as I remember, same for level 2, they now say 5-9 and it used to be 6-10 as I remember? That is nice if it is in fact true.
No they didn't change the levels. I copied both the Jan 2010 prices page and the Jan 2010 commissions page a while ago and both of them show the downloads for each level as they are today.
230
« on: May 06, 2011, 20:26 »
When were those flickr shots uploaded? It took my images more than a year for tineye to find even one of them. Tineye takes forever to index them.
231
« on: May 06, 2011, 11:41 »
OK, I found this in the forum...
Update: Level 0 has now been extended to old members as well. Everyone should be able to see now level 0 for the files that have no download. These files will automatically move to level one after the first download.
I don't know what that means for the other levels. I was only half kidding about it being complicated. I guess I didn't realize how complicated it was. 
lol I was just reading the same thing. I think they first introduced the level 0 images on the 18th of April with the same credits as the level 1 images without changing the rest of the levels. My last sale with the old pricing was on 17th April but I see others on the thread complaining about not recieving the new prices right until 20th. I didn't think they planned to roll out the new structure for quite some time but I reckon they just got sick of everyone whining... either that or they were just as confused as we were and switched them over early
232
« on: May 06, 2011, 10:55 »
Dreamstime and Shutterstock definitely seem to be pulling ahead for me, as IS fades away. My real concern, with all 3, is the steady creep towards subscriptions. We get announcements of changes that contain some good news, plus a bit of bad news about subscriptions. If I say that I think the agencies would really like to slowly herd all their customers onto subscriptions, would that be negative or just realistic?
I don't think it's negative, it's just an observation or a suspicion. I don't know if subs are what the agencies want... they lose money with subs like we do. I think however there's pressure to offer subs and most of that pressure's coming from shutterstock and fotolia. I dumped fotolia and refuse to join shutterstock because of subs. And don't worry about being negative. It's better to speak up and be negative looking for a solution with others than to stew on a problem quietly on your own. Personally, overly enthusiastic people (like the ones you find in the DT forum) are more annoying than overly negative people. I can't even take them seriously because I can't help think that every post of theirs are premeditated to suck up to the admins.
233
« on: May 06, 2011, 10:42 »
Yes, that's right, it's:
Level 0 (0 downloads)
Level 1 (1-4 downloads)
I depends on the customer though. Nothing changed for the old customers. I think Dreamstime is working on making their pricing as confusing as possible.
LOL I know! As if it wasn't confusing already! Actually looking at my recent sales, I think the new pricing stucture applies to all buyers now. Either that or I'm just really lucky. They've also updated the pricing on the Designer's Area tab too: http://www.dreamstime.com/aboutimagesAre you still getting sales with the old pricing?
234
« on: May 06, 2011, 10:36 »
That's what I thought. I guess that's not too bad, in the grand scheme of things, since as you stated, may give an otherwise forgotten, brand new or buried image a jump start.
As microstock and early images mature, I think that those images with hundreds and thousands of DLs, although excellent images, may be a turnoff for buyers, as that means the image is going to turn up everywhere. When I search, I typically search by DL and spend a few minutes going through the images with 0 downloads. I can't help but think that there is an excellent photographer out there who has just finally decided to jump in and has uploaded some excellent images with no sales yet.
I agree about images with lots of downloads end up putting off some buyers but I think thats the case already. Unless the image is unique, it will have to slow down. That doesnt bother me so much though. Those level 5 sales are still nice when they come around, even if its once in a while and the subs for them are easier to swallow. I usually search by relevancy, especially if its a saturated subject and Im looking for something specific. For example if I do a search for beach ball by relevancy, I come up with mainly isolated beach balls. If I flip over to searching by downloads, Ill get all sorts of images of beaches and balls of any sort. I think buyers search different ways depending on a lot of things. Those that are in a hurry and cant be bothered sifting through bad or irrelevant images are most likely to search by download descending. Those who are price sensitive but not so fussy are likely to sort by downloads ascending. Those who want fresh content will search by uploads descending and so on. As long as we have a mixed bag with something to suit every time of buyer, we should be good. That's how I see it anyway.
235
« on: May 06, 2011, 09:43 »
That is a good point. I'm sure this has been mentioned, but I haven't done any digging for the answer yet...does the image jump to level 1 after just one download? I am thinking that's the case, but I don't remember for sure.
Yes, that's right, it's: Level 0 (0 downloads) Level 1 (1-4 downloads)
236
« on: May 06, 2011, 09:37 »
I uploaded two similar files, one was 5657x8485 (48mp) and is offered as a TIFF file.
The other is 6000x9000 (54mp) and is not available as a TIFF.
These files were approved today.
Hi Dave, I just checked your latest uploads and the 5657x8485 is the TIFF file (48MP). The maximum jpeg is 24MP. lol It's alright, I kept mixing the TIFF with the maximum too when I was researching it earlier on.
237
« on: May 06, 2011, 08:56 »
Let me put a put a positive spin on the level 0 sales for you negative Nellies before someone else puts you on ignore! (Im only joking.) Here is my take on it though...
On the one hand it feels like Im being ripped off receiving only 25% for the level 0 sale, especially if its a sale on a new but fairly decent image that I know will do well long term. However, on the other hand, if it means Im more likely to sell an image thats been sitting there going stale, Im all for it.
Generally speaking, I think its a good thing, especially for those images that cover subjects that are oversaturated and are buried deeper than page 50 on search results. If I dont sell it, eventually Ill have to remove it so Id rather sell it for pittance one time to give it a little boost up the ranks and give it some potential to sell more times for more money. Selling the image a second time will more than cover the money I lost on the first sale so it doesnt bother me at all... I quite like the idea.
Overall I like the new pricing structure and Im hoping other micros follow DTs lead and bump up their prices. The only thing that concerns me is the weekly subs deal.
238
« on: May 06, 2011, 05:44 »
I'm glad it's not you because now I can laugh at the painted on eyebrows There's a few on the net with the Sunny Mars nickname. People mistake me for other people all the time, depending on what comes up on google images. I've had a few people recently think I am this person: https://www.facebook.com/people/Sunny-Mars/1514287241 I suppose she's an improvement to the nerdy, overweight, balding chinese guy people mistook me for initially. Thankfully, as my portfolio grew, his image got pushed off search results 
239
« on: May 06, 2011, 05:26 »
(back off topic for a moment - LOVE American Psycho. One of the very few movies I actually own!)
Yeah me too! It just cracks me up! I love all the reference to the 80s music. Christian Bale is just amazing it it, isn't he? If you haven't read the book though and have some time on your hands I highly recommend it... provided you can handle lots of gruesome detail. I didn't know that. I'm glad you pointed that out. It makes sense though. How do they handle the Raw files though? Do you know?
Additional formats have nothing to do with the TIFF.
240
« on: May 05, 2011, 04:20 »
Hello,
If we place vector illustration, (EPS) to Adobe Photoshop as smart object - we can scale this illustration to any size we wish without quality loss and then save it in jpeg format, in desired resolution... This is great Adobe soft feature and it usually works fine, but recently i've faced a problem with some of my vector illustrations there - when i place those vectors to photoshop, it looks awful - iillustrations are jaggy, pixelated and very low quality... I'm using Adobe illustrator CS3, Adobe photoshop CS3, vector format - eps10.
What could be wrong there? Maybe i've made some mistakes drawing vector?
Example of vector with this error:
http://www.freevectorsonline.com/2011/05/messy-background/
I'd be really grateful for some advices.
regards,
Lukas
Have you been doing anything different from the first vector files that worked fine? Have you been playing with any filters, using transperancies, gradients, blurs etc? If I were you I would first go into CS3, open up one of the files that worked fine initially, save it as something else, convert it to eps and see if you're getting the same rasterising problem. If not then I'd say there's some problem with your new vector file having some filter/transperencies/blurs etc. If however you do have the same problem, then I would check your settings on converting to eps. Check for instance that your resolution for rasterisation is set to 300 dpi.
241
« on: May 05, 2011, 03:58 »
I don't see the purspose of ignoring either. It's usually the posts with complaints that are the ones that are going to make me think about something.
I don't mind reading posts that disagree with mine, and I am fine with some back and forth, even if it gets heated.
I will ignore someone if they are just plain crazy or an obvious troll, though. The one guy awhile back who had multiple identities and was posting rants and arguing with himself accounts for the majority of the "people" I have on ignore.
LOL I saw leaf mentioning on another thread that sort of thing happens a lot here. I haven't seen it yet but I'd probably find it entertaining to watch at first.
Actually, there was only really one instance where it happened - but yes the member had multiple user names and was posting from all accounts in the same thread supporting (or arguing against) his previous posts.
That's a tad psychotic. What was he or she (or both) exactly trying to achieve?
242
« on: May 04, 2011, 23:08 »
I probably should bump up my files in future.
I just did a search for "solar panels" by resolution. Funnily enough mine was the largest one there with no TIFF. From that search th largest file with a TIFF was 29MP and from what I've gathered, it looks like the TIFFs for all are converted to double the size of the orginal jpeg.
I'll do a few more searches later when I have more time.
I have a 30.8MP file that does NOT have the TIFF offered - so it seems the cut off must be around 30MP...
Yes, you're right. I just did four more searches and the cutoff is exactly 30MP. So as long as we keep the file size under 30MP we get the TIFF. This makes my day because it means I no longer have to create two different sizes for different agents.
243
« on: May 04, 2011, 22:18 »
I was expecting to see a group of men but it was always just him... with his shopping trolly... swinging his fists in the air. He used to remind me of Tyler Durden in Fight Club... but not as good looking.
Yes, that's exactly it!
Thanks for referencing one of my favorite movies of all time
It's definitely one of my favourites. It's right up there with American Psycho and a bunch of other sick and twisted movies. Back on topic, here's something I've never seen before... at any agent. I just sold a sub on DT for an XS size. Either the buyer's really thoughtful or it's a mistake.
244
« on: May 04, 2011, 18:17 »
reviewing at Veer is quite slow but they seem to be generous on approvals.. never went more than a month
That's good to know, thanks Luis!
245
« on: May 04, 2011, 18:15 »
LOL I saw leaf mentioning on another thread that sort of thing happens a lot here. I haven't seen it yet but I'd probably find it entertaining to watch at first.
Yeah, it was at first.
I used to live next to a paranoid schizophrenic years ago. I would hear huge screaming arguments between several people coming from his window on almost a daily basis. Then one day I heard one of these arguments coming from his back yard and looked out to discover they were ALL him! It was kind of like that. Creepy!
Eventually some guys in white suits (literally!) came and took him away in an ambulance.
**ETA BTW, I know that mental illness is nothing to laugh about, but this guy told the cops that aliens were telling him - via his television - to kill my husband and me with machetes, so my sympathy sort of went out the window at that point. That was a few days before the ambulance showed up. **
hahaha that's great! I had someone like that here a couple of years back. He used to walk by pushing an empty shopping trolly arguing with himself. When I first heard him and ran to the door, I was expecting to see a group of men but it was always just him... with his shopping trolly... swinging his fists in the air. He used to remind me of Tyler Durden in Fight Club... but not as good looking.
246
« on: May 04, 2011, 18:08 »
I probably should bump up my files in future.
I just did a search for "solar panels" by resolution. Funnily enough mine was the largest one there with no TIFF. From that search th largest file with a TIFF was 29MP and from what I've gathered, it looks like the TIFFs for all are converted to double the size of the orginal jpeg.
I'll do a few more searches later when I have more time.
247
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:51 »
I don't see the purspose of ignoring either. It's usually the posts with complaints that are the ones that are going to make me think about something.
I don't mind reading posts that disagree with mine, and I am fine with some back and forth, even if it gets heated.
I will ignore someone if they are just plain crazy or an obvious troll, though. The one guy awhile back who had multiple identities and was posting rants and arguing with himself accounts for the majority of the "people" I have on ignore.
LOL I saw leaf mentioning on another thread that sort of thing happens a lot here. I haven't seen it yet but I'd probably find it entertaining to watch at first.
248
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:48 »
Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs. I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs.
I currently do see my newest 16 MP Uploads being offered as TIFFs, so maybe that maximum value has changed over time.
Yeah, my 24MP illustrations are also upconverted to roughly 48MP for TIFF download.
That's interesting. This is what I wrote: >> Hello again Carmen, >> Thanks for your all your help. Just one last question if I may... What's >> the maximum size I can upload in order to get the Tiff? I'd like to >> benefit from the tiff but at the same time, I'd like to achieve the best >> quality image for the rest of the sizes. This is what she wrote: The size recommended is around 12 megapixels. We also recommend you upload the additional format as this format sells for the highest price - double the price of the highest size available online for jpg. This is valid for credit based sales. So it's the size she "recommends", not necessarily a cutoff but a safe size which sort of suggests that it's up to the discretion of the reviewer? hmmm. It would be interesting to see if all 24MP sizes have TIFFS.
249
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:37 »
To each his own.
Personally I never 'ignore' anyone, I like getting all points of view. Some people like to read things that they agree with, or that reinforce what they already believe. It's up to you.
I don't see the purspose of ignoring either. It's usually the posts with complaints that are the ones that are going to make me think about something.
250
« on: May 04, 2011, 12:39 »
No no, what I'm saying is that if you submit a really large file to Dreamstime as you have, Dreamstime will not convert it and offer it as a TIFF file, which usually gives us more credits than the maximum. They don't do it if your maximum is already as large as a TIFF. When I uplodaded my first 60 files or so, I was submitting large files like you. Then I realised my files couldn't be bought as TIFFs and I questioned Dreamstime. Carmen then told me that they don't convert large files to TIFFs. I asked her what the maximum should be and she said about 12MPs.
If you're with Stockfresh however, upload the file at 7500x7500 because there you get 20 credits for files up to 20MP (I think from memory).
Thanks for the tip. I have to laugh though at how little sense that policy makes from the buyer's point of view. I could give Dreamstime a high quality full size TIFF, but they'd rather upsize a much smaller JPG and sell that instead.
No worries and yes! I had a chuckle and a cringe over it last year as well. It made no sense to me that I was being punished for uploading the larger file. You would think it would work the other way around but oh well, live and learn lol.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
