|
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 - gaja
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16
251
« on: April 09, 2010, 15:27 »
It's not me saying it. It is a quote from the DT forum of a DT admin. Achilles has two posts in the same thread and backs her up (click on the link http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_21296 and see).
I have already made the choice, and will start uploading to Alamy and other micros in a month.
Very silly of DT to insist on total exclusivity. Good luck with your RM venture.
Thank you! I'm very excited about all the new possibilities.
252
« on: April 09, 2010, 14:06 »
It's not me saying it. It is a quote from the DT forum of a DT admin. Achilles has two posts in the same thread and backs her up (click on the link http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_21296 and see). I have already made the choice, and will start uploading to Alamy and other micros in a month.
253
« on: April 09, 2010, 12:12 »
From another thread on the DT forum: " Can't he go RM with different pictures than RF? No, this is not possible, being exclusive with an agency means just that. You can only sell images through that agency. You can have exclusive images here and sell other images elsewhere but you can not be exclusive photographer and sell images with other agencies, be them different and rights managed. " http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_21296
254
« on: April 09, 2010, 07:49 »
They had the same rules in this forum post from 2008, so I if some are selling RM while being exclusive to DT, they circumventing the rules a bit. http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_10743
255
« on: April 09, 2010, 07:10 »
I've decied to start selling a few pictures as RM, and therefore have to stop being an exclusive to Dreamstime. It's a pity, but I don't want to limit myself that much. Had it been possible to keep RF pictures exclusive and still do RM, I would have. At least for a while. I'm very excited about the new possibilities, and curious about how my pictures will do on other agencies.
256
« on: April 09, 2010, 03:54 »
Thank you Sue, I will try to find how one can "add for own use". I do agree that "whale" is borderline for that picture, but when "whale - food" is not available, it is the second best option.
The reason I find "heart - atrium" to be an important keyword for that picture, is that there are so few other pictures showing a section through a real heart, where you can see the different chambers and valves. Since the pig heart is so similar to the human, it could also be used to illustrate a human heart.
I do not understand why atrium should be limited to human heart. It would have been easier to limit it to only atrium - heart. If you search for atrium - human heart, the only picture that really shows the atriums is one illustration.
As for species names: it would have been better to have no species names in the vocabulary, and a spesial box for entering the latin and common name. Or they should add ALL known species into the vocabulary. As it is now, they are almost asking people to mislabel.
With the whales, they could have limited it to the genus. There are not a lot of buyers that need the dwarf minke, and can't use the "normal" minke. And those few people are perfectly capable of browsing the 6 available pictures to find the correct subspecies.
The biggest problem with the controlled vocabulary is that it is too detailed, with too many holes. If it was less detailed it would be easier to do the keywording correctly.
257
« on: April 08, 2010, 16:10 »
Yes, only keywords are used in the search engine.
Strange, then, that IS doesn't allow us to repeat a word (even common words such as "the" or "in") in the title. That one trips me up every so often. Sometimes I have to abbreviate a word just to get it in the title. I wonder if it's related to Google search?
Nope, it's to prevent keyword spamming (that was explained by Ethan (IIRC) some time ago in relation to someone asking about a photo about apple slices and an apple pie, but they couldn't have apple twice. IMC, my problems are with e.g. Crex crex or Puffinus puffinus. But I learned from another that if you put Crex-crex it'll be read as Crex crex by Google.
I find it almost impossible to give correct names to the species my husbands uploads to Istock. How do you get species names through the mill? I tried to give the name Torbay sole as a keyword to a flounder, but that species is not listed, only six American types of flounder. Then I try to use the keyword minke whale to some whale beefs (since that is the only whale species Norwegians hunt and eat, and therefore relevant for someone searching for that type of whale meat.) But no; I have to choose dwarf minke whale, even though that is not completely correct. And now we got a reject for the keyword atrium in the picture of a heart. The only choices are atrium (human heart), and atrium (house). Since it is a swine heart, both are incorrect. The flounder: http://scanstockphoto.com/comps/6/comp842761.JPGThe whale meat: http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=12113720The heart http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumb_490/1269889070dsfNh6.jpg
258
« on: April 03, 2010, 13:10 »
Did you notice which date the blog post was written?
"Disclaimer: This article was published on April 1st and we kindly ask you to read it accordingly. While it may convey some true data, it also contains false info that was meant only as a pun, joke, trick. We have decided to write it in a more believable manner but truly hope we have not hurt anyone's feelings. Some of the points above are real facts and others are pure invention. "
259
« on: March 13, 2010, 19:15 »
The real point is whether it's worth your time and energy. Those sites don't really pose a threat to your sales.
I agree - but the more we let people just get away with it because they can, the more they will. Someone stealing a $0.50 cent candy bar doesn't pose a threat to the bottom line of the gas station either but they want to stop them so it doesn't happen again and again, no? I was actually hoping to hand it off to someone more bored than I. I posted and wanted to get back to work but ended up me doing it.
I had a very interesting discussion with some kids (I guess you could say they don't have completely white wool) about theft. They didn't see the problem with taking a bit of candy, a few beers, some tobacco etc. The worst thing that would happen was that the shop owners banned them. They never got reported to the police, and often the shop clerks didn't bother to stop them at all. Since they didn't see any immidate consequences for themselves, they really couldn't understand why they should stop shop lifting. Of course; they agreed that stealing was wrong. But since nobody really tried to stop them, why should they?
260
« on: March 05, 2010, 10:40 »
I don't know how the situation is now, when we actually have unemployment, but when I went to college, the burger places payed very decently (more than 16$/hour) because it was so difficult to get anybody to work there. The entire restaurant industry in Oslo spoke Swedish. 
261
« on: March 03, 2010, 16:52 »
262
« on: March 03, 2010, 12:22 »
I also think it's a big improvement but it could use finer ratings. But for a general idea it's good. However, people shouldn't put the $$ earned from uploads on DepositPhotos as monthly income, it's just a bonus. I doubt DepositPhotos earns more than 123RF and BigStock like it is now shown on the results.
DP is high because a lot of people for some reason include non-sale income in votes. Do not worry, it will sink drastically next month
Well that's what I said, they shouldn't include them. But yeah, guess next month they'll go down(or will they? )
BTW; is there a consensus not to include referal income in the statistics? It won't make much of a difference, as lon as the same people do the same thing every time. DP will probably have a big red arrow next month
263
« on: March 02, 2010, 15:25 »
The new system is an improvement, since it will show a trend when the same people report over several months. I do however agree that RPI would be better to compare between different contributors.
264
« on: March 01, 2010, 15:46 »
I think some of the obvious mistakes are due to layout. It is quite easy for an inexperienced buyer to mistake the tiny little flag symbol and think they are buying/bookmarking the picture.
265
« on: February 28, 2010, 05:26 »
be careful, as the next big thing in microstock could be a sudden invasion of
chinese and indian photographers selling like crazy with very low production costs.
actually i'm surprised it didn't happened already, maybe their english isn't good enough
for keywording ? 
Models / architecture / landscapes / lifestyles... in India and China are different from Europe / United States - not better or worse, just different; only studio shots of objects could be exactly the same
So Indians / Chinese photographers are not entirely competitors to us, they will bring nice additions in terms of variety; and this will also attract more buyers to microstock
Talking about cheap mass production with Caucasian models - Russia.
Russian pictures and models look very Russian. Buyers will always look for pictures that are suited for the demography they are catering to. I often browse through parenting magazines, and have yet to see a Russian name under one of the children pictures. I guess the Russian kids are just to clean and well dressed to fit into our views of a happy child. http://www.klikk.no/foreldre/smabarn/article530159.ece (This one is quite clean compared to many other pictures I've seen)
266
« on: February 22, 2010, 07:42 »
What do you think; does this subject belong in RF, or RM? Will it ever sell many enough times to justify selling it as microstock, or is it special enough to find a customer in RM?
A picture of a little girl with hearing aid, eating an apple. The first in a series of many, and I'll try to get more of the hearing aid in later shots. That's the problem and positive thing with the modern hearing aids, they are almost invicible. But you see the type of picture: happy little child in everyday situations, with hearing aid.
267
« on: February 15, 2010, 10:06 »
Most of my stats are up to date now.
268
« on: February 12, 2010, 11:42 »
We deleted my husband's portfolio today. No sales, very few pics uploaded, but we don't want to support the system.
269
« on: February 07, 2010, 07:42 »
I'm exclusive, the husband is not. It has all been cleared with Dreamstime, we do quite different things. I do the administrative work for both of us, in return I get full copyright of all the people shots he does. He only uploads objects and landscapes.
This is his port on istock:http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5347761
So no, no secret friend. Everything is very straight forward and all done in nice legalise documents.
Having your cake and eating it too. Sounds pretty shady, even if "legal".
Why? We are to different photographers, and there are no similar pictures in our portfolios. If we had been using the same models and photographing the same props, I could see the problem. But I know that pictures of my models never will be sold by any other photographer than me, and are therefore found only on Dreamstime as long as I stay exclusive to them. How many "exclusives" can say the same? The first thing I did, before my husband even registered at any site, was to ask DT if they were OK with this, or if they would prefer that I dropped being an exclusive photographer with them. They didn't object at all, and that kind of matters a little bit more than your personal opinion. 
270
« on: February 07, 2010, 03:28 »
Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?
How can you do anything on iStock if you're exclusive on Dreamstime?
I'm exclusive, the husband is not. It has all been cleared with Dreamstime, we do quite different things. I do the administrative work for both of us, in return I get full copyright of all the people shots he does. He only uploads objects and landscapes. This is his port on istock:http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5347761 So no, no secret friend. Everything is very straight forward and all done in nice legalise documents.
271
« on: February 06, 2010, 14:01 »
Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?
272
« on: February 01, 2010, 03:28 »
The DT-contract says no sales through any other agent. So I'm afraid RM isn't possible. That would have been the best option.
273
« on: January 31, 2010, 17:30 »
I'm in the fortunate position to have access to a lovely little model with hearing problems. So in the next years I will be able to take quite unique pictures of her using hearing aids, being tested by doctors and audiotherapists, learning sign language etc. I don't think these pictures will sell in huge quantity, but rather should be sold as RM. Do you agree?
But I'm an exclusive photographer at Dreamstime, and comfortable that way. My husband has tried to upload pictures to other agencies (not people), and DT sells better for our style of pictures than Istock (so far).
So what to do? Is it time to take the big leap into the scary world of a thousand different agencies? Do the hearing aid pictures belong in RF or RM? Are there other macrostock agencies than Alamy open to amateurs?
274
« on: January 29, 2010, 12:02 »
I am pretty sure that some buyers DO search on one site and buy on another.
At Dreamstime, where we can see what words or phrases were searched I have often seen my images searched for by the exact image title (and I don't mean something obvious like "apple isolated").
I've seen the same with some of my exclusive pictures. So it could just be someone who didn't put it in a lightbox, but instead made a note of the name.
275
« on: January 27, 2010, 05:19 »
25 images in my portfolio with just under 700 sales ... LOL yeah right I don't even have an account there.
I will consider uploading to them after they pull that entire site down and do a complete redesign from the ground up .. My thoughts are the functionality and layout probably does not make much of an impression on a buyer if any at all. It reminds me more of a hobby blog with a generic photo script slapped in the middle of it or maybe a turnkey website you would buy off ebay for $50.
The design is very well adapted to the scandinavian customer. There is a big difference between Scandinavian and American websites, I find most american stockphotosites horribly messy and difficult to navigate.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
