|
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 - cthoman
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 145
26
« on: May 09, 2019, 15:53 »
And it is back on. I'm not sure why they are so enamored with this garbage idea.
27
« on: May 03, 2019, 15:48 »
A lot of other places already required 7 word descriptions, so it was already a thing.
28
« on: April 30, 2019, 12:01 »
I posted script on here for that at one point for Mac. Should be able to dig it up in the search.
29
« on: April 29, 2019, 15:11 »
Got that email too. Best of luck to them. The last couple years seem like they've been tough on the smaller agencies. Can't say I'd be interested in running one even if I had the money to buy one. At this point, I think you'd need to swing big to succeed, but that has just as much chance of failure.
30
« on: April 27, 2019, 20:06 »
Paid off.
31
« on: April 26, 2019, 13:07 »
Sounds about like what you'd expect. We are so far removed from what they are working on that they probably forget we are still around.
At heart this is really a very simple industry. They are making it sound like nuclear physics.
At some point, it becomes a bit of a magic show. They need to try to create growing revenue year over year from a market that is essentially only so large. They might be hitting that point where the only way to possibly do that is to make it magically appear or somehow convince contributors to do freelance work through Shutterstock (which might be a better magic trick).
32
« on: April 26, 2019, 09:54 »
Sounds about like what you'd expect. We are so far removed from what they are working on that they probably forget we are still around.
33
« on: April 13, 2019, 12:11 »
34
« on: April 12, 2019, 09:18 »
LOL. I guess they postponed the changes again. 
35
« on: April 12, 2019, 07:20 »
I don't get what the fuss is  Just make your artboard bigger and scale everything up. Adobe Stock has a minimum of 15 MP.
I'm guessing they are implementing this so buyers can purchase a decent quality JPEG from the vector file, otherwise it will be too small.
The file sizes alone make for a tedious upload process. The no keywords seems like a huge issue. Every time I've accidentally keyworded an eps 8 file, it breaks it. Not sure if the same is true for eps 10. Although, I don't think Lightroom even imports eps files. So, that's another issue that they didn't even bother to address. Are we going to have to copy and paste all our keywords? Then, there is the whole cmyk thing. I kind of see vector files as print files because of their scalability, so saving them as rgb seems kind of counter to what most buyers might want. I'm mystified who actually wanted this change. It really doesn't make much sense. I'm thankful that I'm not actively contributing because there is no way I'd even bother with this. So, I guess I can grab my popcorn and watch the show over the next few weeks as this train wreck starts.
36
« on: April 10, 2019, 07:23 »
You could probably make a script to increase the size, but Adobe programs are pretty bad at hording memory. So, it may crash out if you are working with a lot of large files. I guess you probably have to work in RGB as well because it doesn't seem like they'll make things work in CMYK. No idea on the keywording, since they never really announced a solution for that. Overall, I'd say no. There is no easy way. Maybe, a boycott and hope they switch it back is the easiest solution.
37
« on: April 09, 2019, 16:18 »
I guess they announced their revised plan that looks suspiciously like the original plan.
38
« on: April 09, 2019, 07:42 »
I just share the reply of SS admin about postponing...
Yes, we neither lost or win.. I hate when things are put on hold.. Hope for good
I think they will implement the only EPS upload, something that people how upload metadata in jpg files will hate; but i also think they will not implement the 4MP rules because they will lose most of high quality vecotrs, so no reason to do that. This will be the first time that SS changes a desition based in users feedback.
I'd be surprised if they had that solution ready to go.
39
« on: April 08, 2019, 15:59 »
No, but people keep trying to get me to open up an insurance agency franchise. What's up with that?
40
« on: April 08, 2019, 15:52 »
Looks like they postponed the changes, but said there would be an update tomorrow. Hopefully, postponed indefinitely?
41
« on: April 08, 2019, 11:21 »
Did they implement this today or not? You'd think they might have backed off... you know because it was a pretty ill-conceived idea.
42
« on: April 08, 2019, 08:56 »
Threw my 2 cents against onto the SS forum. If they are doing this because contributors requested it, then not sure if they will listen to those that don't want it. I would assume anybody that produces a large amount of files already has a system for jpegs and keywords with no desire to upload just an eps.
Did they end up implementing this today or did they delay it?
43
« on: April 07, 2019, 13:22 »
All I can think is that its somehow a cost-saving measure with inspection. Because as it stands, reviewers need to look at both the eps and the jpg to be sure they match. Its also a sound bite for investors, I guess. Implementing new technology Adobe has had for a while now. I dont believe SS does anything with the intent of helping contributors any more, unfortunately.
Edited to add: Remember the increased contribtor engagement they crowed about a few weeks ago? Well, take away the ability to embed metadata in the jpgs, and now contributors have even more engagement because they have to keyword by hand on the site. Takes a lot longer. So much engagement youll get tired of engagement!
I guess it is good news from the standpoint that it slows down any new contributors a little bit. I can't say I had any big plans to submit anything anyway.
44
« on: April 07, 2019, 10:51 »
Does money count as an unmet need? 
45
« on: April 05, 2019, 11:17 »
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
46
« on: April 02, 2019, 07:57 »
The ugly side of crowd-sourcing that we heard about back in 2005 has been showing its face for too long. In my opinion, no matter how little these agencies decide to pay for content, they will still have no lack of new content. For every contributor that wants to try and safeguard their royalties, there are 100 others who are thirsty and motivated; living in 3rd world countries (with good enough technology to create stock) and thankful for anything they can get.
Best wishes with your endeavors - many contributors like myself have simply stopped contributing across the board, and are just replacing the dwindling royalty payments with other commercial work.
Yep. I made the push a few years back to grow a better industry. It worked for a while, but smaller agencies have been getting squeezed out a bit and the larger ones aren't changing. I thought at one point the whole thing might collapse at some point, but it seems like there will always be somebody to contribute. It was a good run and I'll probably collect royalties for a while. I guess I can always shop my catalog if I want one last big payday.
47
« on: January 29, 2019, 08:34 »
I switched to the Adobe site a long while back. It's much better. I used to pop into Fotolia for stats info, but I can't say I do that much more.
48
« on: December 18, 2018, 23:17 »
You are not wrong. It's a weird move considering we actually use Illustrator directly to create our images. That said, the other programs are very useful for stock workflow. It would have been nice to get the full CC version, but that didn't happen.
49
« on: December 04, 2018, 12:57 »
I don't disagree really I just never thought agencies were here to make us richer that's just a by product. Income reducing overall is simply a function of over supply.
Yeah, it's not all that big of a deal because the trend in microstock hasn't been good regardless of what Alamy does. It's just kind of funny when I did the math that it seems like the 10% royalty drop means I have to sell roughly 25% more to make the same amount of money. Seems like a lot of pressure for success on my end. I'm not necessarily expecting big things, but I'm probably jaded anyway. 
50
« on: December 04, 2018, 11:58 »
While it would obviously be better if there wasn't a cut they are really no worse than the rest of the industry. Which successful agency pays 50%?
Whose success are we talking about? I suppose the same ones that used to pay 50%, but lowered their commissions were. They all talk a good game, but they are usually just as successful at 50% as they are at 40% or less from the contributors perspective. I'm sure they make more on the deal, but it doesn't elevate our individual earnings.
The microstock agencies who generate the most income for contributors pay between 15-33% from the statistics I've seen. An unsuccessful agency isn't going to generate income for contributors for very long.
I don't know. I did pretty well for a while on the agencies that paid more. It's pretty clear a large volume business isn't coming back, so reducing roaylties per sale isn't going to help any of us. Dreamstime used to pay 50%, and they are probably lower on the list than they used to be. iStock was a better agency at 20% with no subs. Like I said, they make a lot of excuses about how they need the money and reduce our commissions, but it won't make us any richer.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 145
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
