|
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 - wordplanet
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 46
226
« on: January 10, 2020, 19:23 »
Good blog, but this part bafffled me:
Im really trying hard to justify why I keep uploading to iStock when they provide, by far, one of the lowest Returns Per Download for the majors, at around 0.45 cents and non-exclusive commissions are at a pathetic 15%.
However, Ill keep uploading to them because $100 a month is better than $0 but I cant say that I feel good about it.
Uploading to one of the worst offenders in microstock for a mere $100 "because it's better than $0?"? That's flawed logic. You're saying you have a hard time justifying it.
I would understand it if you keep your portfolio online, but uploading new content to a greedy agency is exactly the reason why they're able to stay afloat.
Is not uploading but leaving things on IS for my $50-$100 a year also flawed? Some days I think so, and wonder about just closing. Others I feel that for the effort, I'll take some "free money". Can't decide, so I keep reviewing the situation and thinking, maybe I should just close out and stop helping them. But then I say, what's the harm... OK you get the idea, undecided, flip flop, can't make up my mind. 
No, that's what I do as well, leaving it online. Considering the work we all put in to upload to iStock, deleting your entire portfolio is a waste, but not actively uploading hurts them enough I hope. But I'm going back and forth as well between closing and leaving it online 
Semi offtopic, no matter the work I have put to upload in the one agency submitting to,
I will have no doubts and regrets to delete everything if leaving them one day.
It is basic business tactic I think similar if leaving an employer or a client.
You don't leave some gear or files or a hard drive around just in case they pay something in the future...
Perhaps I am wrong though 
I understand that, but an employer or client is something different. Unless there's nothing for me to gain, I'm not a fan of burning bridges definitively. Sometimes an agency can turn 180 degrees (Fotolia for instance).
I left fotolia and rejoined when Adobe took them over, and it is taking me ages to get back to where I was with fotolia. Some of my best sellers at the old fotolia were rejected by Adobe because there were too many similars in the agency's portfolio, and I'd be at a higher status now if I didn't have to start from scratch. But I like them since Adobe took over, and while it's still small potatoes for me, I see my income there growing. I removed nearly all my images from iS too. but left about 100 originally waiting for a payout years ago. I haven't added anything new on principal, but I collect about hundred or so a year from that tiny portfolio, so I've just left it there, at first because I forgot about it. It pays for LR/PS, though getting that free in 2020 thanks to Adobe. 2019 was a weird year. Alamy gross income was close to 2018 levels, but net was down about 20% thanks to the commission cut. SS took the biggest nose dive. Even though I made an effort to increase my portfolio for the first time in years, and even though new images are selling there for me (I've been watching my last 20 downloads and they average 5 new out of 20 this month), my income there is down 43%. I didn't upload much new work however until about October, and January is already beating out any month last year, so maybe it won't be as bad in 2020, but I'll probably just tread water. Adobe is growing but it is still small at this point. FAA was the biggest winner, more than doubling over last year, and last year I doubled my 2018 earnings there. FAA has been my best-earning site since 2018.
227
« on: January 10, 2020, 18:50 »
I'm paying foreign taxes I can't write off or get back.
I think there is a place to claim foreign taxes paid, so you should be able to get it back. I'm pretty sure that's what I do (would have to confirm with my accountant to be sure).
Since I don't know where Wordplanet is, I'll just answer for myself in the USA. I get a deduction and credit for VAT (for example) or any other foreign taxes. And I should include that my accountant does the work, I just give her the zipper bag full of everything and she's the brains.
Yes, I get it back, without filing some long form to claim it back, by credits on my US taxes.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit
Hi - I'm in New York. The IRS form would enable me to have DACS actually pay the full DACS sum to me rather than withholding a portion for HMS Revenue. The taxes withheld are less than the $85 it would cost me to get them back, since my DACS payout is in the low $$$. Since I am not actually receiving that money, I cannot take it as a deduction on my income tax, since it isn't income. Just like you can't deduct lost earnings. But thanks for trying to help. DACS sent me a completed HMS Revenue form for free. I believe they withhold about 20% which is lower than my tax bracket, so I guess I'm not really losing out.
228
« on: December 19, 2019, 13:50 »
Yes, small batches seem the only way to get them through.
229
« on: December 18, 2019, 19:58 »
I haven't tried sending any through that ended up back in the "new" section, but I have noticed that sometimes an image shows up as green and ready to submit but the category is missing - the category can disappear or the order can change on its own, so I'd check all the fields to make sure everything is actually in place.
I've submitted as many as 75 in a day, but I usually "submit" them in batches of 10-20 after I reorder the keywords and check the captions, categories etc. It makes it easier to check that all fields are actually completed and haven't mysteriously disappeared or changed. I've frequently noticed that the category order changes on its own, and this way I can change it back. I think a missing category is the most likely culprit. And it could be that you put in a category and now it's mysteriously gone - not a mistake on your end at all.
Maybe try submitting each time after you've reordered the keywords and done everything you need to get say a batch of 20 images ready, rather than sending all 50 or 100 through at once? Easier to check and figure out where the problem is. Good luck!
230
« on: December 18, 2019, 19:26 »
I just uploaded the same group of images to both Adobe and SS - Groups of images that coordinate with each other but where I did my best to keep any similars to 4 or fewer. Adobe took 72 out of 75, rejecting three as similar.
I uploaded 51 from that group to Shutterstock, they accepted 27 and rejected 24 as "similar," in some cases taking a leaderboard but rejecting the cover/banner I noted in the description was sized to work on mobile and laptop screens, or vice versa. They have very different proportions. They also rejected some backgrounds and frames haphazardly, some where the concept was similar to another, but both the color combination and the design itself were different.
Adobe only rejected a few covers that were similar enough to others to make the rejection reasonable.
Frustrating, but hopefully sales on Adobe will make up for whatever I miss on SS.
231
« on: December 18, 2019, 19:11 »
Sue, sorry to hear about your carer duties. It's so hard.
My portfolio is a mishmash of all kinds of things and they all sell - lots of travel, some concepts, a little bit of studio stuff, and illustrations I've made using Photoshop (my version of Illustrator is from my pre-Mac days- ancient) - they all sell on both sites. Travel does well for me, even nature - flowers sell - not what you'd expect. I don't do wildlife though so if that's you entire port, I'd check with Martha since she does primarily wildlife I believe.
232
« on: December 18, 2019, 18:45 »
^^^ Yebbut that's talking about being fair to contributors. When was that ever Getty's modus operandi, or indeed any of the other micros?
Sue, you mentioned checking out Adobe and here's some info you may find of interest: Adobe's blog https://medium.com/adobetech/evaluating-addressing-position-bias-in-adobe-stock-search-9807b11ee268 about how they are changing things to account for how placement on the page in addition to what page your image lands on effects how it is seen and taking that into consideration in ranking images (i.e. "position bias"). It shows an appreciation for how new images and even older images are fighting for position and an interest in opening things up so that more than just the "top sellers" get seen. Sure, their primary focus is to give buyers more diversity in what they see, but it also helps contributors. And it shows they are adapting to the realities of the market. Mat, their contributor liaison here, answers questions and replies to messages, so you have a real person to deal with consistently. Adobe had a different kind of target this year (and last), which I think shows what a difference there is between the companies' attitudes toward their contributors. I'm a very small fish at Adobe, but I qualified for the free Adobe CC Photography program (PS & LR subscription) for a year by getting 300 images accepted in 2019. It was a bit of a challenge because I shoot a lot of editorial, which they don't take, and I didn't read about it until October, so I uploaded most of the files in the past 10 weeks. But it was a realistic goal even for small contributors like me, and was open to everyone, not just the big fish. (Except Illustrators aren't getting what they need - Illustrator or the full program- so they need to make that right). I'd encourage you and others who are thinking about it to check out Adobe. I do better sales wise on SS and even on Alamy, but I had fewer than 200 images on Adobe until this year, so it is not a fair comparison. I'm hoping now that I have more than doubled my portfolio there I'll see better results. There are plenty of big fish here to give you advice.
233
« on: December 14, 2019, 12:58 »
I've rescued disks with SanDisk's rescue software - the old version back in 2007. It worked on a SanDisk CF card that failed when I was in Italy in 2007, and on a Lexar CF card that I mistakenly reformatted before uploading the card to my computer sometime later that year.
I forgot all about the Sandisk software - I'll use it for a test too, thanks.
Until now, I've only tried "recuva", which I found on a review site as "best free software", but if found nothing at all on the card, not even images from before the formatting.
It should work well. Let us know.
234
« on: December 14, 2019, 07:27 »
I've rescued disks with SanDisk's rescue software - the old version back in 2007. It worked on a SanDisk CF card that failed when I was in Italy in 2007, and on a Lexar CF card that I mistakenly reformatted before uploading the card to my computer sometime later that year.
Unfortunately, it didn't work on a Hoodman SD card and I lost most of a day's worth of images from Iceland in 2011. Hoodman could not recover the images for me either. I mistakenly used the same SD card in both my backup D5100 and my backup P7000 not realizing it was a mistake to do so, so my error messed up the disk, but all looked fine on the camera. I went on a long hike at 4:30 am my last day in Iceland and and grabbed the lighter D5100 rather than my D700. When I uploaded them to my computer, they looked fine for a few minutes and then I watched the images start to disintegrate before my eyes. It was awful.
The Hoodman disks aren't always recognized by certain cameras, so I don't use them any more. Someone at B&H recommended them before my trip to Iceland, but I have not used them since then. I stick with the high end SanDisk and Sony.
In 14 years I've had 2 disks fail, and recovered one, and also recovered the disk I erased by mistake. I've shot well over 100,000 images. Meanwhile, I've had three computers crash (an HP desktop, an iMac and a MacBook Pro) so I feel pretty good about the disks. I wouldn't mind a second slot for peace of mind, but it's not essential.
235
« on: December 13, 2019, 18:36 »
I really like the bit that shows your last 20 downloads.
Agree with @KuriousKat that seeing 12 months instead of 3 is an improvement but the old 2-year graph would be much more helpful. I'm guessing they worry about unfavorable comparisons.
It's a good thing customers don't see the map. One license to Taipei, Taiwan appears to be on mainland China, not a good sign!
Using town names in the US without the State is tough enough, but when the map is off it's really pretty funny. I can't imagine there are so many towns in Florida that I've never heard of, which is where I seem to have a big cluster of licenses.
For a tech company with so much know how, you'd expect things to work better, but I think it's still an improvement over what we had.
236
« on: December 12, 2019, 19:10 »
Looking at my last twenty downloads this month, they are all my same old reliable top sellers, mostly travel, a couple of concept, except one new image, licensed yesterday, is of flowers, uploaded a couple weeks ago. Yep, flowers! To someone in Bottrup, Germany.
I think it is a small miracle that someone found it amongst the sea of millions and millions of images.
My new files are doing okay there. e.g uploaded 13 travel images from a small US southern city and 7 of them have been licensed at least once - some more often. Others new images sellers include more flowers, illustrations, backgrounds and travel. Pretty random.
But for every new image they license it looks like they probably license 19 old reliables. I'd say 1/20 new to old ratio is probably about accurate, maybe even fewer new ones... I'll have to use that last 20 sold metric and see over time. it's one change that I like on the contributor landing page - also like the fact that you can see a year's stats, though I agree with a comment elsewhere that I miss the old 2 years of stats from way back when.
237
« on: December 12, 2019, 18:52 »
Noticed that a New Year 2014 image, featuring that date, had sold a couple of times so updated it to 2019.
Rejected for being similar!
Laugh or cry....!!!!!
You are not alone! I have had that same issue with many New Years Eve files - and not just on SS - crazy when I have done elaborate typography that you really can't update without the layered Photoshop files. Though I guess some people manage since I have seen older year files sell on occasion but it's rare. Not knowing they'd be seen as similar, I had made a bunch of yearly files back in 2013 and kept the layered Photoshop files with updates ready for the upcoming years - then found that I usually couldn't get the new ones accepted - though sometimes they squeaked through. I have one from 2015, however, that has been selling regularly, because it is easily updated. After I couldn't get an updated version online, I started updating the headline to include the latest year and to note what font to use to update it. But my best yearly ones are one-shot only after I work hard on the typography. I still enjoy playing around with it, so I just need to be more creative each year.
238
« on: December 12, 2019, 18:49 »
Noticed that a New Year 2014 image, featuring that date, had sold a couple of times so updated it to 2019.
Rejected for being similar!
Laugh or cry....!!!!!
[/ quote]
You are not alone!
(see below it uploaded twice)
239
« on: December 12, 2019, 18:14 »
Interesting article. Thanks Mat.
Nice to see they are considering contributors' chances of getting their work seen as well as making the search better for buyers.
+1 to @snow. Always good to hear from you Mat.
240
« on: December 11, 2019, 15:20 »
Thanks Mat.
Lots of great info on the Adobe blog.
241
« on: November 23, 2019, 21:12 »
I had some weird rejections for intellectual property too - not at SS but elsewhere - I remember when I used to upload to iStock, I think "Newport" was an instant rejection so all my images from Newport, Rhode Island were a no-go - their loss as those files have earned me thousands - and now of course some are on Getty from 500px - just crazy!
And Getty of course used AI to re-keyword, so I don't expect sales. The worst is a photo of a church on Cape Cod with pumpkins for sale filling the front lawn. It is keyworded with "church, Christianity, religion..." and words of that nature ... but forget "Halloween, fall, autumn, Cape Cod" - the words a buyer would use - Alamy has licensed this image a few times for me - but Getty certainly won't. I'd rather get $$-$$$ then a few cents, anyway.
242
« on: November 23, 2019, 20:56 »
I think that using non-professional reviewers means you are always going to see inconsistent decisions.
I remember last year uploading a bunch of very different illustrations based on a single photograph. They were very varied. Shutterstock took about 2/3rds of them. Adobe took 4 - the original image made into an illustration and 3 different color variations of that original image, which were similar to each other. But then they rejected all of the other very different illustrations when the only thing they had in common was that I had used the same image as a starting point. If I hadn't uploaded that original image as a "property release," I think they would have accepted most, if not all, of the others
Even more inconsistent was their decision to accept all 32 illustrations of another subject I uploaded at the same Those 32 backgrounds all used the same basic elements (hand drawn, so no "property release"). After uploading, I thought I'd probably gone a bit overboard, and I figured most of them would get rejected. But SS, DT and Adobe took all 32. Go figure.
Of course, the stuff Adobe rejected is selling on SS and DT (or was until this month - I think this is my worst November since I started back in 2008)
I even had one flawless image that Alamy licensed to Travel and Leisure, rejected by one of the micros for "artifacts." Maybe the reviewer had dirt on their screen? It's the exact same file Alamy took with their pixel peeping and has sold there and via my site for $$$. Flawless in print but not good enough for a micro? Seriously, I re-checked the file at 200% on my retina screen and on my iMac.
I guess you just have to shrug and move on.
The most telling I suppose was some years ago when I made $375 on DT for a single $750 one-year exclusive sale of an image that had already sold many times before there. I guess I should thank the other sites' reviewers because the only reason it was exclusive on DT was because every other site had rejected it as not being commercially viable.
It's very frustrating to get such inconsistent acceptances and rejections. If a file is rejected somewhere, another site would usually take it, and generally I'll feel vindicated that the inspectors were wrong when it sells elsewhere.
243
« on: October 23, 2019, 16:20 »
I claim DACS directly. It was direct deposited to my bank about 2 weeks ago. I read on the Alamy forum that DACS is sending them out in batches. Funny that I got mine in the US before several people from the UK. It could be alphabetical (my last name starts with C). Anyway, I'd guess you will receive yours very soon.
I also just got the forms showing the UK tax withheld along with the (free) form from HMS Revenue that I'd need to claim the tax back. Unfortunately, the IRS charges $85 for the form on this end. Ah well, a little more toward foreign aid to India...can't complain about helping those in need. Looking at it that way makes it less annoying for me that I'm paying foreign taxes I can't write off or get back.
I don't think that anyone was UK-bashing ... I think he was saying that those from the UK were already helping out India... at least that's how I took it. 0.7% of GDP has to be a big number -wise
And I totally agree, I don't begrudge the charities, but the huge loan write off to the video company and the large dividends to directors when they are cutting our commissions on already deteriorating sales numbers, plus their refusal to require new clients to pay up front, leading to so many uncollected commissions, or the failure to investigate all these bogus personal use licenses, that I do begrudge.
244
« on: October 22, 2019, 19:22 »
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
More than anything, it is really disappointing. I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Agree with the above (we posted the arithmetical working-out simultaneously!)
Also, they were very aware of percentages given by most of their rivals (essentially crowd-sourced agencies) when they made their decision.
LOL I just saw your post and amended mine with an apology for having repeated what you said. They do have the best commissions out there, and, like you, I think, I've been a big Alamy supporter, but they are losing some of my support.
245
« on: October 22, 2019, 19:15 »
Going from 50% to 40% is a 20% reduction in the commission you will earn.
Going from 100% to 90% would be a 10% reduction.
I remember when they promised us that they would never cut our commission again after going from 60% to 50% (a 17% cut).
It's old math...or the "new math" I learned in the 1960's LOL...which is now old math...
Sorry, Uncle Pete, just giving you a hard time, but the real point is that it is a bigger cut than it first appears.
I didn't mind so much when they first posted about their charities, since the charity was the impetus for the stock site to begin with. But after looking at the loss they wrote off last year in their Annual Statement, I'm not sure I believe they needed to cut commissions to improve operational costs. They said that earnings are flat, so the cut gives them 20% more revenue to work with. Seeing them pay dividends to their directors, write off a huge loan, and then brag about how charitable they are, without any info on just how they are going to improve operations, well, it certainly rankles.
Apologies to Shady Sue I somehow missed that your explanation and mine were nearly identical.
246
« on: October 22, 2019, 18:29 »
In catching up on other threads, it appears that 10% of all files on SS sell.
Because I get so many more sales of old images, my impression, before doing the math, was that old images are selling best and new files are getting buried. But after crunching the numbers, I was wrong.
So, where do new files fall in that statistic? Well, my worst selling new set, 30 Easter images with a limited shelf life, did the SS average, and were online for only 16 days before Easter. Summer concepts did better with 25% of new images selling. My bread and butter, travel images, did best with 86% of my new travel photos selling within around a month or less of uploading, and continuing to sell again after. As a whole, 19% of my new files sold, with those Easter concepts dragging down the average since they accounted for 40% of new uploads.
So, why did my new work get seen and sell?
I think it's pure math - those algorithms most of us don't really understand. (My daughter is a Ph.D. candidate in math, but I am still clueless). But I have a layman's appreciation for percentages. Since I started, 63% of all my images have sold (some once, some just a handful of times, my best just under 500 times). If 10% of the collection sells, then I'm above the average. So while I got lucky since my new images were seen, I'm guessing that's because the algorithm takes into account my past sales ratio as well as perhaps the length of time I've been a contributor. My top sub downloads also tend to have the most Enhanced and Single licenses, so I think sales history helps them keep selling. Otherwise I can't imagine how my tiny portfolio would keep selling amongst a sea of 300 Million+ photos.
If newbies don't have a sales history, I'd imagine they get a bump to start or they would never be seen, just like new images a get a bump, though with so many new files daily, that bump must be short-lived. But I have to think those spammy portfolios must be hurting themselves, as their sales ratio can't be very good.
247
« on: October 18, 2019, 14:56 »
It is disappointing that stock has become so overcrowded and that, as there are more new people for the sites to choose from, plus all of us old-timers have continued to improve, SS and many (most?) other sites are crowding out the millions of good images with so much junk. With hundreds of thousands of images, why get less picky? With all the dreck, maybe it helps our images stand out? If they get seen...
I got lucky. On a calendar shoot earlier this year, I had some illustrative editorial shots I couldn't use. Uploaded them to shutterstock and they sold right and are continuing to sell. Just adding those images seemed to jump start my account which had been languishing, giving me my best month this year and keeping the momentum going (nothing to write home about but at least a steady - if small - payout each month). Pix from 2010-12 are still my best-sellers, some still on page one and selling weekly even when I stopped uploading, but nice to see the new work wasn't a waste.
2019 has been a weird and inconsistent year. The first half was strong. In fact, by June I'd made as much from stock as all of last year, due largely to Alamy and, to a lesser extent, SS. Volume continues to be okay at Alamy, but the prices I've gotten for sales the past couple of months have tanked. Only SS seems to be holding steady.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not all "wahoo" like clueless newbies who are crowing over tiny sales each month and blogging about how great they are doing (I saw one blogger whose account showed his BME was $4!!!). When my SS income was cut in half a few years ago, it wasn't a big loss in terms of raw numbers, but it was disappointing to realize then that stock would always be supplemental income. For those who were earning enough to pay all their bills, I can't even imagine the disappointment. Ironically, while I regret that I didn't upload a significant portion of my portfolio "back in the day," I am now planning to upload a lot more to SS as I've seen my RPI hold steady for several months now. Even if this just gives me a few thousand $ a year, it's better than leaving them on my hard drive. But it is sad that that's all it will ever be.
It's such a shame that as the microstock market has matured and so many shooters' skills have grown, average income has gone down and even top shooters have to scramble for other ways to make ends meet.
248
« on: August 13, 2019, 09:21 »
As everyone said a lot depends on budget & what you plan to shoot. I used Nikon for years great cameras full frame & APSC sensor. Now I have Sony full frame a7rii love it beautiful bokeh. Also have Olympus em1 love it too super light sharp even without the expensive pro lenses. I opted for prosumer lenses as it was an experiment for me. Ive sold tons of those images. As stock & large prints. Exhibited a lot at galleries too. Havent upgraded to the more expensive lenses because I dont feel the need. Great for travel even lighter than the Sony. Sony quality however at 42 MP cant be beat but probably overkill for stock. I sell a lot of iPhone pix too. So go with your budget & look at older models often great deals. I got my Sony for less when the newer a7riii came out. Probably great deals on them now too if you feel you really need high end. Amazing at night & even at very high ISOs
249
« on: August 05, 2019, 00:45 »
I used my Photoshelter site to get client work - including magazine and newspaper clients as well as business clients. For me, shooting stock came later. But even if that wasn't the case, I wouldn't use a stock site to get clients, especially a microstock site, since that might make them expect to pay those types of prices, or encourage them to find stock photos instead of hiring you to shoot for them.
Client work pays much better than stock, particularly commercial clients - magazines and newspapers sometimes don't pay much more than full-priced stock sites charge. But I find that shooting for local magazines helps me get local business clients.
You could show potential clients your digital tearsheets - i.e. links to some of your stock photos in use online. But IMHO you should set up a website for potential clients to see what type of work you do.
250
« on: August 02, 2019, 16:53 »
If you received an email saying they'll escalate the matter, I'd reply to that person (unless it came from a non-reply email). That's really the only advice that I have. I've always had a good response from them when using the "contact us" route. Haven't used the chat. Sometimes an issue gets bumped to another person, but it's always gotten resolved. Hope it works out for you.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 46
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
