|
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 - pelmof
26
« on: October 04, 2006, 08:15 »
Recently, I have noticed that my approvals on most sites are rising from the 60-70% range to 80-100%. Assume I am getting better and/or more selective.
Except DT where my rate has dropped to under 50% with recent batches (same ones others are accepting) in the 0-20% range. One of the last batch, they didn't even give a reason. Only place i have less images now is Istock
Actually, I'm picking up on the comments on the iStock thread about uploading problems which has begun to discuss the DT rejection rate. Yes, I've been noticing the trend to downward acceptance, and I've also noticed a seeming pattern. I usually upload in batches of 10 to 15 images twice a week. While my acceptance rate at my other sites remains around 85% - 100%, DT is rejecting whole batches or only accepting 1 or 2 from a batch. However, it seems that the next batch is accepted at 100%. Then with the next batch, the rejections occur. Then with the next batch, 100% acceptance. Seems strange to me. Not to mention their annoying rejection comments; "please be more creative," "poor execution," etc. And the long preamble about how selective they are and the implication that they are the creme de la creme of the microstocks.  Rant over. P__
27
« on: October 02, 2006, 05:02 »
anyone know how to apply there, or do you have to go through jupiter?
It is Jupiter owned. You will find many of the same images in all of the sites owned by Jupiter (see berryspuns comment above). You can get subscriptions to one of their sites or buy a package to several of them. They have their own stable of photogs, and you can apply to them via email at the link at the bottom of this page: http://www.jupiterimages.com/contactUs.aspxPat
28
« on: October 01, 2006, 18:20 »
My reference to "sucks" was from a customer/designer point of view. Are you a designer? Do you buy images from stock agencies?
Yes, and yes.
Ok, curious to see your site, can I see a link?
I don't have a site. I work as a photo researcher for an online educational publishing company. As such, I research, edit, catalog, and design the placement of photos that illlustrate the text of the course. My expertise areas are literature, art and social sciences. I am a 30+ year semi-pro photographer who isn't shooting at the moment. All of my submissions to microstock agencies are designs--illustrations and fractals. Here's my link to the LO site: http://www.luckyoliver.com/portfolio/pelmofThe first 19 images are the ones that sold. P__
29
« on: October 01, 2006, 17:17 »
My reference to "sucks" was from a customer/designer point of view. Are you a designer? Do you buy images from stock agencies?
Yes, and yes.
30
« on: October 01, 2006, 15:14 »
i think what will attract the photogs. is the sales. if they can spend a good chunk of change on advertising then they will get sales. take a look at fotolia, they started only recently and have a good market share i would say. they also have a ton of images (how many is another debate in itself)
Do you think Fotolia made it by spending a good chuck on advertising? I guess this is where we have a different line of thinking. All the advertising in the world won't make a difference if your product sucks (to be blunt). Which brings me back to my point. It's the photographers that make a site succeed. Fotolia's success in my book is that they recognized this. Although they don't have the best commission in the world, it does get progressively better with more downloads, and also they did that promotion where they paid real $ (not tokens) to photographers to upload. This is right about the time the site took off, coincidence, I think not.
Fotolia sucks for me. After 2 months, I have $.99 in sales. P__
31
« on: October 01, 2006, 14:23 »
Whether it comes from a 20%, or a 50% commision is really irrelevant. If the company works hard and takes an extra 10, 20, 40% worth of commision and gives me sales in return, then i am all for it.
For me it's not irrelevant, I know alot of times the agencies hard work has nothing to do with it. As a designer, I will go from site to site until I find what I need. If IStock doesn't have it , I will look at Dreamstime, if Dreamstime doesn't have it I will go to StockXpert. When I find the image to buy, what did the agency do to get my sale? Google ad-words and a search engine that was able to find what I needed. Is that hard work? Not in my book. It was the photographers hard work that drove the sale. We all give too much credit to the agency for getting us sales in my view, it's all about you creating the content designers need. And for me, 50% is the lowest I feel comfortable with
But, if the designers don't know you exist, or even if they do know you exist but you have no "reputation," will your site be one that they will visit when looking for that elusive image? I doubt it. And if, as a designer, you work for a company you have to go through the company to register with the site in order to download. If you don't know about the site, or if the site has no reputation, you aren't going to push the company to register. Marketing is key. I know this because I am a photo researcher for a small educational publishing company. Until I got into this microstock game as a contributer, the only sites we knew about were IS and DT. Pat
32
« on: October 01, 2006, 13:53 »
Maunger and Leaf, I'm with you. You're absolutely correct that a company that works to promote itself will bring in the sales. And 40 sales at 30 cents versus 5 at 50 cents is preferable. And, different sites have different audiences. My best selling image on SS was rejected by DT. And all submissions to IS have been rejected.
LO has accepted 95% of what I've sent them, and to date (2 months in the game with small portfolio hovering around 200 images), they are my second best selling site. I can personally attest to the fact that there are actual "for money" sales coming in. I have 19 sales, all in the large size. I have faith that LO is on the correct track--even though we don't know their marketing plans yet. At least they plan to market.
In comparison, I have 4 sales from Featurepics, and even though the % payout is larger on Feturepics, those 4 images amount to 1/4 the $$$ amount from the LO sales.
Go LO!!
Pat
33
« on: October 01, 2006, 12:18 »
hi, i just strated in GS 15 days back & i think it's ok ..
Member for 15 days? And you got your images reviewed? Before I took mine off the site I had been waiting 3 weeks for a review of 35 images. Just goes to show there is really something pretty hinky about the site. I think it's time to stop beating this dead horse. Pat
34
« on: September 29, 2006, 16:51 »
More thought, and I may be wading in deep **** here, but maybe taking this thread to the broadcast media might result in the culprit and GalaStock becoming accountable in a legal and/or monetary form. Could save a lot of individual lawsuits for those inclined to take it that far. I just think it's a totally newsworthy event that we have participated in--or, am I living in fantasy land?
P__
Probably fantasy land... 
Wasn't thinking about an international lawsuit. I was thinking more in the line of exposure, creating guilt, and letting the world know that such actions will not be tolerated--and that the Internet is a powerful tool in crime busting. Sorting out the international **** was not the purpose of my suggestion--exposure of this incident was the purpose.
P__
I'm not sure of the laws in Latvia, but I doubt that an international lawsuit would come about from all of this. Who would have the money to hire a lawyer for something like this? How much would be gained from the lawsuit (probably nothing)? How does Latvia treat copyright law?
On top of all of that, the photos were submitted to a French site. So in which country does the case reside?
Somehow my previous response got garbled. I was not thinking of an international lawsuit. I was thinking that broadcast media exposure of this incident might put pressure on, and create guilt, in the culprit(s) so that restitution might be made without lawsuits. P__
35
« on: September 29, 2006, 15:59 »
More thought, and I may be wading in deep **** here, but maybe taking this thread to the broadcast media might result in the culprit and GalaStock becoming accountable in a legal and/or monetary form. Could save a lot of individual lawsuits for those inclined to take it that far. I just think it's a totally newsworthy event that we have participated in--or, am I living in fantasy land?
P__
36
« on: September 29, 2006, 15:45 »
The more I think about this situation, I believe we have all been witness to a remarkable event. Together, as a community, we have managed to expose a thief and a suspect microstock site. It is a tribute to the Internet, Tyler (leaf) as host of this forum, and all the contributers to the link that we have been able to do this. Good detective work by searching the net and ferreting out the culprit have accomplished a valuable result. It may be a link that should be preserved for historical reference. Kuddos to us all.
JMHO.
Pat
37
« on: September 29, 2006, 13:23 »
Just tried the link to Deniss Kolesnikovs' page on Fotolia--turns up empty. Guess Fotolia France finally removed the images. Good riddance.
P__
38
« on: September 29, 2006, 08:20 »
As for GalaStock, I would expect much, much more in response. As a photographer's agent, there are responsibilities. I would expect much more communication from GalaStock to the photographers that were a victim here. I would also expect to see legal actions taken by GalaStock. A quick response from GalaStock is in order. We will see what type of company GalaStock is based on this issue. I've been somewhat dubious about GalaStock from the beginning, starting with the spam email soliciting my images. But because some photogs reported early sales I took the plunge and uploaded some trial images. All was going well with the first 22 of my 57 image upload being approved in a couple of days. But then the long wait began for the rest of the images to be reviewed. Also, there were some holdout skeptics who wondered if early sales could possibly be scam sales just to promote more uploads. In noodling around the site one day I noticed that I had a 5 image upload limit per day. What? Five uploads per day was ludicrous. After waiting 2 weeks for my remaining 35 images to be reviewed, I emailed GalaStock regarding the lengthy queue time and the teeny upload limit. Never heard back from them. Now, we get a 3 line, lame apology from the owner for this egregious violation of our trust. I think, but can't prove, that there is more to this than he has admitted to. I do think the site is a scam--if not outright by intention, then surely by lack of oversight and the dissing of the contributers demonstrated by my own experience with them. Pat
39
« on: September 29, 2006, 06:54 »
Dear all!!!
It is really awful incident!!! Deniss Kolesnikovs WAS our employee till today's morning...  He had account on galastock as photographer... But after this incident he was fired! It's was of course my fault, as his chief ...
Well, at least he responded and admits his culpability. More than I can say about his interest in responding to his contributers. Methinks something more than firing is due Deniss Kolesnikovs, though. After all, he did violate copyright and is a thief.
40
« on: September 29, 2006, 05:52 »
Has anyone contacted Galastock?
THis maybe an issue with one of their reviewers. From my understanding, most sites download full versions to reviewers computers for them to check. There is then an element of trust with all sites that their reviewers do not keep them on their system.
CJ--GalaStock doesn't respond to email contacts. I've tried to contact them regarding their lengthy review times and small per-day upload limits--that was a week ago and no response. I have just deleted my small 57 image portfolio--22 of which were online, and 35 pending review for 3 weeks. I'm done with them. But, they may not be done with me as they may still have my images somewhere in their files.  Pat
41
« on: September 26, 2006, 16:13 »
It's a blank page for me...
It's back up now.
42
« on: September 26, 2006, 15:34 »
Anybody else having trouble connecting to DT, Have been trying for half and hour and keep getting a can't open page error.
Yep. Me, too. Pat
43
« on: September 25, 2006, 05:13 »
On the site it says:
Image checking can take from 3 to 5 bussiness days
Maybe a bussiness day is about 7 times longer than a business day ?  Goes right along with the link to check out your "referals." I did send an email to GalaStock support regarding the lengthy review time and tiny upload limit. No response yet (but it's been less than 24 hours), and my 35 images are still stuck in the review queue. Pat
44
« on: September 24, 2006, 11:18 »
My upload limit is 50/day and I am for sure not the world best photographer, perhaps the two of you should contact support???  SY If I remember correctly, you were one of the first to upload to this site. I suspect (but can't prove) that as the amount of images coming in grew, the upload limit shrank in size so that now it's down to 5 per day. Even with that, they can't seem to get to the reviews. I do think I'll contact support and see if I get any response. Will let y'all know if I hear anything. Pat
45
« on: September 24, 2006, 05:43 »
How are you finding the review time there, I still have some waiting since 5th September, and currently uploading to their limit of ten a day? Uggggh! I thought I was waiting a long time (since the 9th), but now it looks like I have to wait longer. And I have an upload limit of only 5 per day. But I haven't been uploading anything new--waiting to see if the site takes off. Maybe this is a one man show and he's found out there's more to it than just putting up a site? Jury is still out on this one, but it's looking less than a winner right now. Pat
46
« on: September 20, 2006, 14:52 »
I'm pretty pleased with LO. I've had 19 "real" sales. They come in clusters, on the weekend at night. 2 clusters--8 in one and 11 in the other. Do wish they'd get to reviewing more rapidly. I have about 30 images waiting. They used to be as fast as SS, but in the past couple of weeks they've slowed down tremendously.
Pat
47
« on: September 18, 2006, 17:16 »
Well, as someone who can't upload to iStock because I do abstracts and fractals that they don't want, I've been watching this thread with some amusement. I genuinely feel for you guys who have bookoo images on iStock and have to go through all this bull****, but it really just speaks to their arrogance.  I can personally attest to the fact that the Euro and Asian markets can find the images they want without going through a translator--especially one that gets it wrong. My downloads come throughout the 24 hour period, and many times I get more at night (Euro and Asian times) than I do through the day. Obviously, many of the downloaders are not western hemisphere residents. So, who needs this thing anyway? Pat
48
« on: September 16, 2006, 14:12 »
It's too bad that iStock doesn't look at the sales records for this type of imagery. Oh well, their call and their loss. At least there are other sites you can upload to. (So long as you don't go exclusive anywhere.)
G~
Yes, if they bothered to look at the sales records for even their own small collection they'd see downloads in the 60s and more. And the majority of their collection is of the "automated content" variety that Allsa says they have no interest in. Well, I wouldn't be interested in them, either. The ones that have large downloads were done by real artists, and that's why they get downloaded. Rendering a fractal is pretty easy--it's the post-processing that turns it into a worthy image--and this is by no means an "automated" process. Sometimes it takes hours. No plans on going exclusive for now--too early in the game to even contemplate such a move. It is an interesting business, though. Having a lot of fun counting my pennies and learning which sites to work with. Appreciate the support. Many thanks. Pat
49
« on: September 15, 2006, 22:35 »
I was looking at new uploads today. I saw abstracts going through. They were called "abstract in blue" or something like that. What is considered an abstract anyway?
I saw those "abstracts" in the new uploads. They are more in the nature of generic backgrounds (crumpled paper type images) that were either scanned or photographed, and really misnamed as "abstracts." I think what iStock means, and what I mean by abstract, is the literal meaning of abstract in the artistic sense as defined in Webster: "abstract... 5. in art, characterized by design or form that is geometric or otherwise not representational." In other words, fractal images or Picassoesque images. While it's true that iStock has 21 pages of fractal images, they have had those same 21 pages for a long time now (at least for the 3 years I've known about the site). They don't seem to want any more. I think they feel they are not in the business of selling artsy art. They're more interested in utilitarian images it seems. I'll be the first to admit that my stuff isn't regular "stock" material. It isn't even photography. So the fact that my work has any kind of an audience in this venue is kinda interesting, and just goes to show that each site has it's own buyer base. For now I'll give up on iStock. If I ever get the urge to take photos again, I'll make another attempt. Pat
50
« on: September 15, 2006, 14:25 »
Okay, so I admit that at the moment all I'm doing is fractals--but they are selling fairly well on my main sites (SS, LO, FP, and DT). After my 3rd try with IS they sent me this within 5 minutes of my upload:
"Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:
Abstract 1, 2 & 3:
We are not accepting many more 'abstract' images. If you have any photographs can show us, we would love to see it."
Okay--I got the message.
Pat
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
