|
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 - click_click
Pages: 1 ... 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 100 ... 119
2351
« on: July 09, 2010, 08:42 »
I couldn't find the answer to that when using the fantastic search function of the iStock forums. Does anyone here know if I can or have to witness my own property release? I'm going to upload a picture that contains two images from me in it. Can I leave the witness field empty? Or do I have to find someone of the street to witness my own images? 
2352
« on: July 08, 2010, 19:14 »
2353
« on: July 08, 2010, 17:52 »
I was contacted by a friend of mine that owns a large furniture store locally. ... That's the problem. Friends and money... bad combination. You have to make this worth your time but is your friend really up for paying for that? I smell someone low-balling you. In any case if you do follow through with it - best of luck!
2354
« on: July 08, 2010, 11:51 »
Eep, sorry about that mister click_click  ... No worries, it's ok  At least the conversation keeps going in an educational and friendly way which is rare to see in many forums these days. Keep talking about Aramis, Artemis or Alamy if you like.
2355
« on: July 08, 2010, 07:11 »
This thread has been officially hijacked 
2356
« on: July 06, 2010, 21:56 »
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why.
Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.
What matters is what the image conveys. It really doesnt matter how the image gets there whether its a snap shot, studio lit with props, or heavily processed. Your post makes it sound like you hate an orange for being an orange and not an apple.
I do admit that English is not my mother tongue but I don't know how you could read that between my lines. Just because in image is taken without much thought or planning doesn't automatically mean that it's a bad image or that it doesn't convey a message. My point was that the Flickr images in question don't appear to be taken with a concept in mind. I might be totally wrong, that's possible I admit. To me it appeared that the dog shot had some thought process to it. I don't have wigs laying around, nor do I have access to someone owning a dog that doesn't freak out when a wig is placed on its head. I think this was some sort of concept well thought out and executed. Just take the frog on the swing. Whichever way I would try to take an image of such a scene, I would not have taken it with the frogs legs cut off. In fact it takes more than a blink of the eye to recognize what this thing in the foreground even is. It's not super obvious that a frog is hanging around on a swing... Now is this some genius pro-shooter who knew exactly at the time of shooting that Getty would look for such an image? Was it a lucky shot in the dark? Would I dare spending my time submitting images like that one? That's what I would like to hear from you.
2357
« on: July 06, 2010, 19:54 »
#1 looks quite soft. I bet in the other images there is some focal point somewhere - hard to tell.
I really don't want to judge the images themselves. Good for the photographers to find a buyer who needs them.
It just shows that more could sell than what we get approved at most agencies.
And why even bother shooting "beautiful business woman on headset" if all it takes is snap-shot style pics to sell them for a much higher price?
I think this seriously undermines the entire stock image concept.
Fine, if there are buyers that need a business team shot with 5 pro-models and the whole shebang. But then the agencies should also realize that true-life shots should have their place as well.
It's ridiculous to see the approval standards at IS, SS and some other nit picking agencies as long as P&S images sell at X times the price at Getty.
I don't get it.
2358
« on: July 06, 2010, 18:22 »
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why. The real dogs specialist on this forum is Artemis. Check his IS port! Far superior to this Getty snapshot.
Just to set this straight - I'm not saying that this is the best dog shot I have ever seen. I said I like it best from those posted. There is a big leeway.
2359
« on: July 06, 2010, 17:56 »
y do you like dog shot the best because i certainly dont think thats the "best" and ive seen those images tons of times? i personally like the shot at the beach the best but when it comes to creative content everyone has their own opinion.
Because it appears that the photographer actually set up lights for this shot, put a wig on a dog that is actually holding still for a moment and the look on the dog's face is hilarious - that's why. Everything else is "just" like walking up to it and taking a picture.
2360
« on: July 06, 2010, 14:30 »
Maybe the key is to look so ordinary that it's considered professional...? At least I'm not the only seeing some "discrepancy" here. I wonder if those Flickr images are free of noise and artifacts as well. Or is exactly that the justification why they are worth "more"? Is the last image a panoramic image? 14457px x 9638 px? I'm just stunned. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/97840446/Flickr?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|97840446|0&esource=iStock_HotShotsWk67
2361
« on: July 06, 2010, 13:24 »
I do respect when non-pros get a lucky shot and get their 5 minutes of fame when they have a sale at Getty through the Flickr collection. This week's Hot Shots features 8 Getty images with only 2 of them coming from Getty. 6 featured images are from the Flickr collection. A couple of questions: Are the images on Flickr better than the images that can be found in the Getty collection? and: Why wouldn't Getty feature more "in-house" top sellers rather than images that used to linger around at Flickr? Doesn't this make Getty look "cheap"? 5 of the 6 Flickr images are basically snapshot situations. Let's not argue about the execution of the images in terms of conceptual approach and technical quality but why even try to throw money into a photo shoot paying models, MUAs, assistant, props, location etc. if all it takes is snapping around outdoors? I also understand that "snap shot" is not always the same. But 4 of the 6 didn't require months of planning. If you think otherwise, please elaborate.       The dog shot is the best IMO.
2362
« on: July 05, 2010, 08:13 »
... But you forgot to mention these are PC shortcuts
Are there others...?
2363
« on: July 04, 2010, 11:38 »
Yes!
Microstock need better control over using of photos...
Probably SS do something in that direction (example, Avon license problem...)
Also website photorights.com and their forum...
Perhaps we should have greater involvement in their forum...
We all thought that when we were younger. But that's how business works. It's just a money game. It's not going to happen that any agency will act or react to every infringement of their license terms. With the numbers of daily downloads there is no human or technical way to keep control over that. Unless you believe that thousands and thousands of employees would browse the entire internet, all physical stores, street vendors etc. and check items in order to re-check if license terms have been properly followed. You're way better off shooting or creating more images. It's also a lot better for your heart and mental health.
2364
« on: July 03, 2010, 17:45 »
On a side note: Images such as the one the OP was used, are better off at Macro agencies.
Just look at Alamy. There are tons of such images (this type of images). If you sold that one through RM you would have definitely gotten more out of it.
Next thing to consider is, how big is the market in the microstock world for such an image. Sure it's a nice image but it's not a business woman on a headset smiling if you get my drift. Is it really worth uploading that type of images to the micros?
2365
« on: July 03, 2010, 14:42 »
I think the days are over that our images make millions of dollars when printed on road maps, books, CD covers etc.
I don't even bother anymore trying to pursue such "lost" royalties.
2366
« on: July 02, 2010, 09:31 »
...@Click-Click,
no. You didn't upload to Deposit Photos because they were new and you were trying to help them grow.
You uploaded because they paid you. That's why you uploaded. For the money.
There's no point in calling them names now. You were paid for your efforts and you got what you wanted.
You upload to ThinkStock for the same reason. You want the money, and you want it now, regardless of consequences in the future.
You're right, you're on a mission to 'squeezing'.
I'm not.
Before you go on and ask the question, I uploaded to Deposit Photos too.
But in a different way.
First 5 batches - 10 photos each - for free.
I was fully aware of the bonus, but I didn't activate it. I wanted to help, that's all.
Did you do that?
I never got a payment from Deposit Photos. Not enough images included in the promotion and that's fine by me. From time to time I get a sale - always more than 0.25 cent, sometimes a lot more, great, they're still new and I'm still uploading.
I'm sorry if I have hurt anyone's feelings with my post - it wasn't my intention. First off, when I did a test upload of 500 images to Deposit Photos the promotion was already over, so I didn't get one cent for uploading. I don't know why you thought I did.  Second, I opted into TS because they have massive resources in terms of cash and experience to get this thing off the ground. I have several hundreds of downloads with them each month which simply doesn't compare to Deposit Photos performance. I can't and I don't want to convince anyone to opt into TS for any reason. I just post my experience with them so far. I respect you opinion about TS. I'm just saying that as long as my IS earnings are going up month after month while my TS earnings go up, I see no issue. This could be just because of the type of images that I have. My motto was: If you don't try, you'll never know. If I just wave my hands around about the fact that they only pay 25 cents per download I would never have started at SS in the first place. So what do i know?
2367
« on: July 02, 2010, 07:58 »
... None of those are what I would call confidence-builders.
But at least we're not paranoid 
2368
« on: July 02, 2010, 06:38 »
Thanks for posting about this. I noticed the same. Three files approved and within a few minutes they all had over 700 views each.
And yes, the main issue here is how that affects the best match placement (badly!). Otherwise who would care?
My exact worry as well, that many views without sales can't be good for best match placing and i surely hope they'll get reset.
Another thing crossing my mind... the site's buggy as hell (earlier tonight buyers got another error msg for a while, views get screwed up, thumbnails don't show, stats don't update etc etc), who guarantees the downloads and commission counter works as it should? Maybe it's paranoia but all the above things don't really add to my confidence.
Yes lots of bugs these days. IS announced that the site change is imminent and it appears that they didn't learn to implement site changes correctly. It now seems that they keep messing with it over a longer period of time. This is quite upsetting. I had quite a bunch of 503 or 505 errors with the little guy and his concrete parachute on it. They did well on that one because it makes me laugh every time I see that little poor fellow. My acceptance average is now at 0% and now the views-issue. Not to mention the problems with the uploads lately and the broken video processor for NTSC and PAL clips. I can't believe I'm talking about the industry leader having such problems. Hopefully they CAN sort it out in a timely manner...
2369
« on: July 01, 2010, 18:10 »
If you don't have a huge portfolio or a distinct style I think you can neglect the number of buyers following you to the agencies where you sell your stuff.
Sure, there are picky buyers that want THAT shot and have to buy it for the price which is asked but I dare to assume that most buyers have chosen their favorite agency or are forced to switch due to lower prices to places like Thinkstock or Crestock.
I've made the mistake of signing up with Depositfiles. I haven't joined any other newcomer agencies in the last years but DP (or is it DF?) is just another dud. Also I see that they accept a lot of crap. They're just trying to stockpile so they can show off a high image total on the front page - who cares?
Now Thinkstock on the other hand simply delivers. Fine, it's not another Shutterstock right now but in the end I count the money at the end of the month that's coming into my bank account and TS delivers better than all "smaller" agencies.
We non-exclusives are slaves to the industry. We can't direct the microstock strategy. We just deliver the product. By now, we have so many contributors in this game that naturally sales will dissipate in the sea of so many contributors.
In fact and technically every non-exclusive would have to upload to every agency which is active (even one sale a year is active) to squeeze out the most of a portfolio. Since this is not possible of course you would think about what effort is justified or economically sane to still be able to produce (AND have a life)?
So we found ourselves contributing to 6, 8, 10 agencies maybe some more if mom and dad are paying the rent.
In any case I think it's useless to start throwing numbers around trying to figure out what the OP wrote. Think about how much time, effort and resources you would have to put into finding out which type of image sells better on IS rather than TS in order to decide to allow partner sales or not - I think you will go bonkers.
The math is easy for me. TS gets my pictures and not DP (DPF whatever you wanna call them) simply because they actually make decent money while DPF doesn't. Maybe it's just my style or maybe because I don't have 5000 images with them. I know though that I can make a living with my port from what I get on the big sites, so I it's a no-brainer right there, at least for me.
2370
« on: July 01, 2010, 14:26 »
Kind of weird to see this happening under the eyes of Peter since StockXpert used to be very fair.
My guess is that iStock paid them a good bunch of money for the takeover so now they feel like they could get even more next time if they provide a better product.
It's just a money thing. Most of us are just the balls they juggle with. Sadly.
2371
« on: July 01, 2010, 12:07 »
Maybe this is a hint:
2010 Crestock Corporation. A Masterfile company. All rights reserved.
Both addresses of Crestock and Masterfile are identical, so I strongly believe that Crestock has been bought out from the guys in Norway. So now we have a different management. That should hopefully speed up the process of payments.
2372
« on: July 01, 2010, 07:04 »
Can anyone confirm that editing keywords after being accepted leads to a worse ranking?
That's really nice then that inspectors tell us to remove "not directly related" keywords which would lead to less favorable placement.
2373
« on: July 01, 2010, 06:06 »
I thought I was photographer of the day or something
2374
« on: June 29, 2010, 18:04 »
Ok then. I haven't received this email, even if recently I began to receive the sales notices again. I am always suspicious of links outside the site.
It's always recommended to be on the lookout for phishing scams. In case of doubt simply email the agency first to confirm the sender, they are the ones who should know for sure.
2375
« on: June 29, 2010, 17:42 »
Just curious, how did you get the link? Is this site "http://sgiz.mobi" safe?
It should be safe, unless someone hacked the " [email protected]" where it was sent from... It appears to be a company that handles surveys for other companies. It's a common practice to outsource such things in order to get it done right the first time...
Pages: 1 ... 90 91 92 93 94 [95] 96 97 98 99 100 ... 119
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
