|
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 - puravida
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13
26
« on: August 03, 2009, 11:32 »
That's the point of Vetta...
Not as I see it. I can't choose to put my images in Vetta, they have to be selected - by art school snobs who don't share my aesthetics, or those of my potential buyers, and think they know everything about photography and the image market because 4 years ago they learned how to set up a web site and a database. Maybe the real point of Vetta is to create an exclusive club that you want so desperately to be in that you'll keep jumping through the hoops and submitting images for 30 cent sales. 
compared to what? Stockastic? objectively speaking, many of you put up with a lot more crap as long as you don't see the name "Getty" or "Istock". you don't crap on it if it's DT, FT, SS, as much as if it were IS. you still have to jump thro hoops , many times with Atilla with the other Big 6. so in this sense, Vetta makes the better of 2 evils.
27
« on: August 03, 2009, 11:22 »
If you search around Alamy, you'll eventually find a dunce who knows how to mash the shutter button and uploads 20-30 of the same shot. One guy does color variations, four or five of each shot. (don't ask me why, I don't get it) That's why the RPI may be lower. On the other hand, there are some people with 200-300 photos who get regular sales. Same as micro, it's quality that sells, not always just the quantity.
agree with you on quality. but you have to admit, flooding the site with 1,001 variations of the same image still gets your images found, and bury some legit stuff under your redundant images. How many buyers will look past the first 5 pages, to find your quality image? actually, there should be a deterrent to stop this flooding of the same image with color variations. truly PITA.
28
« on: August 01, 2009, 13:06 »
you may be small now, but one day your business could be big and these images will still be out there. when that happens, you may have people looking to sue you . so better to protect yourself now, even if you are small
29
« on: July 31, 2009, 07:06 »
Tom, I think this Vegas coyright thing has being going on for a while, I remember some years back when the Wynn hotel first open, I stayed there for a few days and took some wonderful photos of the place, well I'm glad I got into a conversation with a local that informed me that everything was under copyright from the Parasol room inside to the exterior of the building, as well as any other Hotel/Casino on the strip...well little to say that was a big disappointment and a wasted effort...must of the photos had to be uploaded as editorial...so careful with those photos of yours, you just might get that knock on the door. 
BTW, if the person knocking is a big ugly guy wearing a black leather jacket and his name is Vinny, RUUUUN!
rofl, funny but very wise words m@m i had a (casual conversation) once at some fashion show and spoke to certain (insiders) who took charge of ie. security, bouncers, trade shows, casinos, etc.. and was told not to meddle with casinos. started out of just mentioning how i once unknowingly walked into a casino with my equipment dangling around my neck. Within seconds 2 "Vinny"s came at me with a few little "Vinny"s swooping around us (very James Bond scenario )...and I was told "nicely" to check my "stuff" or else "leave the premises stat" ! the (insiders) told me I was wise to "nicely" get out, as it would be much safer to meddle with Al Capone,  . btw Tom, to add to what m@m said, to avoid having to open the door to see Vinny standing under your porch light, look through your window drapes first to see if Vinny came in a black Rolls with white wall tyres  oh, and make sure you get some bullet proof overcoat too. Try ebay psst, and don't bother calling the constabulary, either. they got that covered
30
« on: July 30, 2009, 19:11 »
contaminated soil? global warming? what do you think is causing these phenomenon, guys? every day we see the Big 6 trying to compete for these two awards: 1) the most contributor-unfriendly site of the Big 6 2) the lowest paying sub commissions I wonder which site will be the ultimate winner on both counts. And of course, their contributors being the stool pigeon and joint winner of the award: BIGGEST LOSERS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS. 
31
« on: July 30, 2009, 14:23 »
i have a sneaky feeling i know which site you just visited, P. it has to be one where your submissions are not reviewed. or else, if rejected, the wording would be, "too many of the same image" , and ya, 100% rejection here's an idea, if you want to do the same thing P. make an illustration or image of a map, topograph,etc... and keep using a different city , state, or continent, until you run out of names. you should be able to upload at least 200, 000 images by the end of August.
32
« on: July 30, 2009, 11:39 »
Jogging today, crossing a pedestrian x-walk and almost smooshed by an SUV. As I was about to yell at the vehicle I looked at the sticker on the back, something like 'DSLR-forum.com or 'DSLR.com' (can't recall what), and had to laugh at the irony.. that's my story. 
ah yes, I know that bumper sticker, it's an association for : D-riving S-on of a bitch L-ousy R-uffians
33
« on: July 29, 2009, 21:22 »
34
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:12 »
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PARTICIPACTION.
AND MAY YOUR WISHES ALL COME TRUE ...
yes, now be quiet and let us enjoy our lithium pills. dreamstime over !
35
« on: July 29, 2009, 20:00 »
Same kinda of secretive (you don't need to know) crap that got me sideways with FT.
John, their excuse is that YOU, the competition, will find out who their partners are.
ya lol, like we're dealing with the Mob. the less transparency the more shady the business, like they always say.
36
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:46 »
Puravida... no sir.. I'm batting 60 yrs and I've circled this planet several times, and been up and down just about every road in life....
There's no 'wool pulling' here, some of this is bordering on just plain and simple abuse of business ethics. Some of these outfits are just festering wounds of complete distrust in their contributors. That's how I'm seeing it. =tom
.... probably why FT will be the 3rd I've bailed out on this year.
[/quote] if ever you need some lube, PM m@m . WOW! at the rate this is going, I'm seriously considering quitting stock photography and becoming a KY lubricant distributor, I have a feeling there's going to be a big demand for the product.
Boy, I'm glad I'm not a Fotolia contributor!----
37
« on: July 29, 2009, 19:28 »
............Iwas left to feel like I was trying to rip off FT.
I left 2 pix on. One my #2 seller, figured I'd let it sit and as soon as I hit payout, cash in and delete. Well while that pic sells daily on 3-4 sites or more, it doesnt seem to sell at FT. And now I find it on these obscure sites.. and after reading how many have found unacceptable problems with their sales... I gotta wonder ... WTH?
I'm just getting a bit fed up with all the 'behind the scenes', 'dont let the left hand know what the right hand's doing' crap.
Perfect hot example now, StockXpert. WTH?
y'know , i've been feeling this is getting more ridiculous evryday. i know you from this forum from way back and you don't sound like some 15 yr old greenhorn that grown ups can pull the wool over your eyes. yet, lately, i am getting the impression that some of these CEOs in micro are starting to think we are all just that, 15 yr old greenhorns that they can scr#w around . first, let's get the subs lower and lower until their commission vanish into thin air. hell, they won't complain. they will say, hey, as long as our dls increase and we still make more money, lower commission from subs , no problem. etc. etc. etc. can anyone tell me, how truly confident we can be with these clowns running the business ? tom, like you said, for example StockXpert. also ! everyone's in the dark. oh what, give them a new game to play, and nobody will ask questions. hell, what has become of this business ? is anyone listening out there to what we the contributors are saying, or feeling, all these times? this is too much ! tom, i hope we see some changes soon. with your case and fotolia; with StockXpert letting us know where t f it's going, etc..etc...etc.. seems like there's only a handful of us here who is actually asking questions. i feel like the rest have already been gassed with lithium and being the walking dead with no b#lls to speak up. that's what happened before , remember. now, we see our earnings moving even lower. that's what happens when the sites know we 're desperate for their money, no matter how little. shame !
38
« on: July 29, 2009, 18:56 »
okay, I read the whole thing.....
I never submitted to these clowns, how'd my pix wind up there? Gravitate from FT....?? I've got to start reading fine print everywhere now..
thank the powers that I decided to take my FT 'folio down to 2 pix a long time ago...due to my credits being ripped off. I think I'm just going to delete the 2 and cut my losses with FT.
Or am I wrong? =tom
tom, i sure would like to know what's happening too. seems like this whole micro stock business is coming up with more and more curve balls at us contributors every single week. maybe we are the clowns as this whole business is becoming a circus. freak show ! is there an alarm we can pull for scavengers alert ?
39
« on: July 29, 2009, 18:51 »
scary !
did you write Fotolia to ask them?
40
« on: July 29, 2009, 16:08 »
True spamming for me is "red" in an image of a blue satin sheet or "caribeean, jamaica, maldives, fiji, tahiti" in a beach image.
so agree there with you. like "summer" in a hamburger or barbecue closeup; "sun" in a girl with bikini. Keywords police-ing is dependant on the knowledge of the reviewer. Much like editorial reviewing.
I give you an example . Once I submitted an editorial of a very famous ship with a history . I included the story of that person so the reviewer would know it is relevant.
The image was rejected as not having editorial interest.
Yet I still see lots of girls walking around in editorial features, with less "editorial" relevance that are being accepted.
So, if the reviewer does not know the relevance of the person or object, it really does not make a difference.
P.S.
I don't want to make a big deal about it, but for specifics, anyone interested can PM me and I will go into further detail.
i had the same thing happened to me once a long time ago, actually. a picture of the famous ship "bounty". i insert "captain, blight, mutiny, mutineer". the reviewer charged me for using these words as irrelevant, simply because the reviewer did not study or worse, ignorant in naval history.
41
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:37 »
1) BigStock
because it's not that impossible for them to go up a rung or two . right after Getty kills StockXpert and another site in the Big 6 commits another SUB suicide.
2) Cutcaster
because John Griffin is the coolest CEO on MSG
3) Zymmetrical
as soon as Keith makes it easier to upload images and keyword them.
4) Veer Marketplace
because there is nothing more satisfying than see Corbis kick Getty's a#se.
5)... no one else, but if PhotoShelter came back from the dead,
they would surely be top of my list.
Any of these will be much better than cutting my wrist, lol.
42
« on: July 29, 2009, 15:28 »
what bad weed have you been smoking , bro? have you considered one important thing, as stockastic mentioned in the other thread. that the question is not whether you want to be exclusive, but whether they (i assume you are talking about Istock) want you exclusive or not. have you even tried to upload their max limit as a newbie? did you even get at least half of it approved? if you haven't even done this, you should . then come back here and ask the same question.
43
« on: July 29, 2009, 14:57 »
yo tbm, antes StockXpert uno de mis sitios favorititos. pero desde Getty, el sitio ha sido muy loco. guacala.
me parece no vale a pena continuar subir imagenes alla.
claro, todavia otros personas quien estan deciendo ellos tienen bueno suerte con StockXpert. para mi, estan un exception.
disculpeme, hay muchas anos sin hablar espanol.
44
« on: July 29, 2009, 13:54 »
Yes Getty "invited StockXpert contributors to join IStock". They neglected to add "and good luck with that, you losers".
that's true too ,stockastc.. maybe they did say it ; only we could not flip our email to read other side
45
« on: July 29, 2009, 12:50 »
Appears that you are correct!
They are competing with themselves, in the same market. By directing all the buyers to one site, it will probably make for more IS growth. Consolidation of acquisitions.
This moves me closer to only two or three sites for my shite.
-In the end, Getty will prevail. They are the masters of monopoly and they know their stuff. -Only Corbis has enough clout in the field. -As for the rest, they will continue to push on for lowest price possible to get their money's worth before selling out the company, or move to be another Facebook, Flickr, Twitter,etc... It's no loss for them. The only losers will be us, the contributors. The buyers will all be cheering for these lowest price ever; go on a scavenger hunt and gather as many road kill they can get , before the sites close their doors. Sad, but I challenge anyone to give me a better scenario forecast.
46
« on: July 29, 2009, 12:32 »
Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.
If you think dropping down from %50 commission to %20 is good for us than I need to say no more
I don't care too much what per cent of sale do I get because it's more important how many sales I get. Each of istock or shutterstock give me low per-image sales yet each of them generates more sales and $$ per month than StockXpert (some time ago my StockXpert sales were in line with IS or SS but that's not the case any longer. It will become even worse with JIU and photos.com sales getting away from StockXpert).
Aren't you forgetting something?
What determents how many sales you get on a particular site? ......the amount of buyers!!!
So redirecting customers to Istock instead of StockXpert does make a difference.
And not only that......most of us have more images on StockXpert than on Istock.
So yes, definitely, it will be bad for us submitters!
not if you also have a port at IStock. it only means you will get more sales with your IStock port. it's only for those who do not have a port with Istock . then simply the thing to do is to start an Istock port. (with but one problem. the limit to be a new Istocker. you won't be able to build as large a port as what you now have with StockXpert). the writings are on the wall; or have been a long time ago. either we move on , or give up.
47
« on: July 29, 2009, 12:03 »
oh, and also, " we supply the equipment. you don't have to keep upgrading to the latest DSLR . sell it, and use the money for your next christmas vacation !".
48
« on: July 29, 2009, 11:58 »
Looked at the 123RF landing page? "Images as low as 0.19$".
Fotolia : images from 14 cents.
Dreamstime: high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each.
They are all playing the price competition game.
sooo right null. every day tossing burgers is getting more and more attractive. if i were the manager of a burger joint ..., no, let's make it a "sub-marine" joint, i would put up a sign, "why be a micro stock photographer? we pay better wages than your subs...PLUS you get free lunch !"
49
« on: July 29, 2009, 11:43 »
why is it that every other new post is an announcement that one site or another is "trying to screw" us? is this an epidemic? i wonder how long this is going to continue. it will be a refershing change if one of the sites give us an excuse to post a topic announcing, :"hooray, at last , one site who thinks contributors' satisfaction is just as vital to micro stock as buyers' satisfaction". any takers? 
50
« on: July 29, 2009, 10:53 »
Despite my flagging interest in microstock I decided to submit a few more shots. And once again I'm in keyword gridlock.
I have a nice one of an abalone sea shell. Looking for ideas, I check SS for the 'most popular' images of abalone shells, and naturally I find that they've been spammed to the max, with keywords like "beauty", "beautiful", "texture", "pattern", "details", "pieces", "colorful", etc. etc.
As we all know, microstocks are preaching to us that we shouldn't spam, spamming is bad, spamming will only hurt you, spamming will be punished. And as we can plainly see, spamming works.
So - do we keep spamming away, or play by the new rules? Are the new rules really enforced?
good observe, stockastic. i think it all depends on who you are. what i mean is, many times i look at the best sellers for "inspiration" on keywords, and see many of them spamming. so i think it's highly subjective matter. whether you know the reviewer (s) or has a buddy working there. you know what i mean ?
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
