|
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 - willie
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 28
251
« on: January 08, 2010, 09:56 »
Had a small for $3.00, an X-small for $1.20, Medium for $5.80 among a few others... these smaller sizes are where exclusives will see the biggest increase in earnings due to their frequency and their higher percentage increase.
For the sake of comparison,
I just sold a Medium for 1.50$ royalty. that's almost 4 times less.
for the sake of comparision too, i just had 5 combined sales of one image at IS totalling $5 odd, and the same image also got a single dl at 3 d studio totalling $5 odd. hmm, i wonder if the same buyer went to IS first or 3 d studio. oh well, some of us paid more at the shopping centre while others pick up the same good at the dollar store. i guess more ppl visited the dollar store in micro stock 
252
« on: January 08, 2010, 09:45 »
Remember that iStock wants a release per shoot day(s), the model's birth date, and a visual reference. Other sites are happy (for now) with a catch-all release, but better conform to the strictest site.
Since iStock is a harsh mistress, I also add a photo of the model(s) signing the release. 
yes, even the older MR which IS had is no longer acceptable to SOME IS REVIEWERS. although i've had no problem with majority of the reviewers using the old IS MR as the generic MR for everyone across the board. for months i had no problem . but only with a certain reviewer with IS and lately at the other sites too. so it may be the same reviewer working with them, because the rejection of the MR which for months had been accepted by all the other reviewers everywhere suddenly became unacceptable with this reviewer. reason: a date must be specified with each signature. i find this a bit strange. when you sign a contract, there is only one date at the bottom. no matter how many signatures there is on a contract, or even in divorce papers lol.. pages after pages , or real estate, etc.. the date at the end of the contract stipulates that all the signatures were made on the same day. it's a given, any business man or woman who has ever signed a legal agreement knows that. obviously, as one of my associates laughingly puts it, "maybe it's some kid who got the job as a reviewer and she/he thinks as a reviewer he/she has to rewrite the whole contractual agreement." i find that almost hilarious. i would not have found it hilarious had the other reviewers , obviously more experienced with the MR, pick that out some 6 months ago when they checked my MRs. iow, if this overzealous reviewer is right to insist a date assigned to every signature, then the other reviewers who have approved my work over the past 6 months were negligent in not picking that up. my guess is that this is a reviewer who does not know f...all about a legal document. 
253
« on: January 08, 2010, 01:06 »
People really like 30 cents commission it's amazing 
actually, someone else pointed out too, StockXpert was doing great until subs came to f it all up.
well said. 
Exactly what I think. I wish I was able to remember the name of that women who did a conference call with some of us contributors. She is also the "brain" behind this sub/extended licence deal. I wonder if she work for microsoft now... or Enron
well VOnkara, i suppose when you live in a country where 30cents can buy you lunch, or if you live with your parents and your camera equipment and other overheads are paid with your daddy's credit card, 30cts a dls can be like money you scream for as a kid putting pennies into a piggy bank. then at the end of the year, you ask your daddy for his hammer from the tool shed to break open the piggy bank and watch all those 30 cents fall out, it must look like manna from heaven, as you praise your microstock "god" for giving you so many glorious blessings of dls. but for some of us with real overhead , 30 cents does not go very far, not even enough to pay to flush the WC . we're not so lucky living in these more affluent countries or not to be still living at home with our rich parents
254
« on: January 07, 2010, 20:25 »
Congrats.
Although I still don't think that we should be giving our work away for free.
congrats Tyler... echo...Although I still don't think that we should be giving our work away for free. no offense meant to Tyler, but more to the stock sites who encourage it. maybe we should ask them if they don't mind giving away some credits to us for free... like each contributor get 100 credits FREE..!!! then see if they think it's a good idea. anyway, here's an anecdote: i once, twenty odd years ago, managed a pro photo store and we conducted seminars for Sinar etc. we got together with the best to give a free seminar at first. no one came. then malak (the brother of the great Yousuf Karsh) told us to charge a fee because nobody will think it's any good if you don't charge a fee. sure enough, as Malak was world reknowned and business wise in his own specialty showed us his mastery was not just limited to being the Official Photographer worldwide for many Tulip Festivals for many years. needless to say, when we started to charge a fee, our seminars were packed in every session we gave thereafter. this is another reason why i strongly believe that free and cheap subs in micro are full of horse feathers, and will bring us nothing but folly . IF ANY AGENCY WISHES TO BE A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, LET THEM APPLY FOR A c.o. LICENSE AND BE NON PROFIT... and call themselves SALVATION ARMY. failing that, maybe they should show their true colours and name themselves something more appropriate.. PHOTO MOOCHERS, perharps. postscript: hippy joke here :- buy one get one free, good idea. buy one get two free, not so good, but still an idea buy none and get one free ? boy, what bad weed have you been smoking , silly boy!!!
255
« on: January 07, 2010, 19:28 »
256
« on: January 07, 2010, 19:15 »
PERSEUS, You must have been either reading our minds yesterday or if you live in Mesa, AZ did you sneak into the back yard to listen in at our weekly meeting?
We were discussing photo approval and we are getting a bit tougher. Tracy's team is adding categories to the rejection email so folks will have a better idea why something was rejected. When someone has a large batch of shots with the same problem she will email them directly with some advice/suggestions on how to make the photos acceptable.
We readily admit that in July 2009 when we started with stock photos, we didn't do much review and we accepted "everything" but we are learning and we hope we are improving! Oddly enough, some shots that the big guys would probably have rejected did sell with us, so we don't want to get too picky!
The3dStudio.com is still very much in the beginning and learning phase of stock photos and images. We do want to change for the better the way stock is bought and sold and we are willing to go a bit more slowly and figure things out as we go.
We welcome and appreciate all suggestions, advice, etc.
[email protected]
Lisa, sooooo, that was your crowd raising all that ruckus with the swimming pool, half naked men and women, meringue band and hoola dancers  shoot, had i know i would have dropped in for some bangers and Guinesses. just kidding. HURRAH ... i guess it pays to open my big mouth !!!
257
« on: January 07, 2010, 19:07 »
Distorted pixels due to poor sensor performance Pixels are never distorted. They can't, they are perfect squares. If they would be distorted, they wouldn't fit in an image or there would be cracks in between them. An image can be distorted, a pixel can't.
tell that to Prince Achilles not my words FD. that was a copy paste from the rejection reason box of DT.
258
« on: January 07, 2010, 19:05 »
.... If iStock were to fail or severely drop off, then I can always go back to spreading things around among the sites. ...
The only problem is that you would loose your Search Positions from your established files at the other agencies. I doubt I would do so well, if I would delete my portfolio and upload it again.
good point . other factors not mentioned are such things as - keywording style with IS is different with say DT - IS preference for less" saturation" less "overprocessed" work to use their own words that seems to plague SS regulars and vice versa not to mention the images IS takes are most times quite distinct from the other Big 6. iow, you have to reinvent your wheel all over again which will be more like a newbie. just my own observations, as always... nothing to confirm i am a "stock-xpert" (argghh bad pun).
259
« on: January 07, 2010, 18:53 »
thank you lisa
thank you matt
your coming in to respond to our comments here speaks volume as far as i am concerned. you have my continued support. i look fwd to seeing more dls reflected with more uploads to you.
HAPPY 2010 and may this decade bring us both better results and bigger success.
260
« on: January 07, 2010, 18:29 »
900+ files 36.000+ views 1 sale ($7,20)
that would = 24 subs at SS , FT , DT or StockXpert or IS. that's still a bit underperforming. although as i said, they're still weaning. i made $5 with only 20 images which i thought was impressive, but i won't say if it will mean more dls with more images. we'll see. i just like the idea of getting $5 for one dl. and only for a 4mp max size. another thing, yes, the views are quite enormous. but i suspect it's mostly passersby looking at your work and keywords rather than buyers. i will only begin to take them seriously once they introduce some form of QC to curb the facebook type snapshots.
261
« on: January 07, 2010, 17:52 »
My approval rating this month:
SS 59,62%
IS 40,68%
FT 30,96%
DT 52,85%
BS 72,22%
StockXpert 85,83%
...
Veer 4,23%... (6 images accepted out of 142)
And, of course, no sales and 9 views on a portfolio of 259 images.
Ok, I can be still a newbie, I don't have a great portfolio and so on.
But don't you think there's something strange here?
You have a very low acceptance rate everywhere, so your situation with Veer is quite logical.
For example it is really very easy to get acceptance on BS or StockXpert above 95%
that said, it is also very easy to get a high acceptance ratio with VMP, give them all that is not on the Big 6, or give them your new images first before they come on the Big 6. it works for me. but as someone pointed out, VMP seems like they are simply doing no promo and riding on the coat-tail of their daddy site, so in 2010 they are not getting anymore new images from moi.
262
« on: January 07, 2010, 16:57 »
i never really pay too much attention to try to figure out the semantics of this rejection, given that i usually get one image rejected and the other say 20 from the same shoot approved. i really don't bother to try to second guess the reviewer, as it's not worth my time to re-process it to placate his holiness. so, i never ever resubmit to them ever. EXCEPTION would be IS when a certain compassionate reviewer actually took the trouble to explain in plain unambiguous English to explain to me why it was rejected. the exemplary reviewer actually give me a SPECIFIC UNDERSTANDABLE EXPLANATION, of which when I a mere human like the reviewer (phew, thank goodness that at IS such a reviewer actually exists) corrected the SPECIFIED REASON OF REJECTION most times gets approved quite promptly on resubmit. but for DT, i gather the esteemed reviewer meant (quote)... Distorted pixels due to poor sensor performance, image was interpolated, poorly scanned, upsampled, oversharpened or JPG was not saved at the highest quality. iow, one or all of the above. i gather it is the same for FT except a little more ambiguous, that only expert in hieroglyphic of DT and or FT can understand.
263
« on: January 07, 2010, 14:23 »
Except... with the huge image backlog I have at iStock, it's not worth trying to resubmit. By the way, the tattoo in this case is tiny, taking up the ring position on the model's ring finger. Here's the 100% view of the offending area.
i am not a regular with IS, but if i recall, if they say MAY RESUBMIT it takes approval much faster when you CORRECT THE REJECTION REASON. at least it happened to me a couple of times. Scout on the other hand is I am told much longer, and most times, may still agree with the reviewers. so you may still end up losing more time, to hear Scout' s sorry bud, and to resubmit after that. furthermore, even if you won the argument with Scout, the buyers may still refrain given their own caution re the tattoo.
264
« on: January 07, 2010, 14:13 »
Please God, allow no new micro sites in 2010!
lol, Yuri was here a moment ago, why don't you ask him directly? seriously, i think we all gave VeerMP a little too much benefit of the doubt, because of the older senior . but i guess just because your dad or grandpa was a good business man does not mean the grandchild cannot end up to be a dud (case in point, like some famous hotel heiress, lol). red faced , i am not betting on MP anymore.
265
« on: January 07, 2010, 14:02 »
I know it's a PITA, but if you really want to get that image up there get into photoshop and erase the tattoo and resubmit... forget about scout, it takes waaaaaay too long...
good point zorki. 2 mins at the most to clone off the tattoo versus how long it takes with scout???... 2 months?
266
« on: January 07, 2010, 12:32 »
well, for this time, i am totally with IS on this call.
i shoot glamour and model ports as a regular sideline, and whenever i find a good model to use for my stock photography, i always turn away those with piercings and tattoos. not because i am against defacing your own body. but as the others already pointed out, you need an IP release.
sounds absurd? well, if you need to erase off a car brand or logo of a building , whether it be uncle chow chow or bank of america, or anything identifiable,
why not tattoo? even if it's on a little pinkie?
you don't think it's significant. but if i am the creator of this tattoo, it would be as large as the whole building to me, to bring IS or any site that accepts my work.
would you not sue someone if they even put a thumbnail of your photograph without your permission and put their name as photographer?
size is irrelevant, it's still a property.
267
« on: January 07, 2010, 12:20 »
I have images submitted but I won't make them be reviewed until someone officially will clear the site's future out.
hmmm 
how can you do that? do you leave the keywords out ? or something incomplete? i don't think that is a good idea, regardless of what happen. here's why. my images are being approved on the spot, almost immediately as i upload them. if you leave them for later when everyone finally change their coat to be BORN AGAIN StockXpert BELIEVERS your images will be last in line.. also, let's say something good happens, and StockXpert finds a new management , or whatever. you want your portfolio to be the first ones there with the hierarchy of oldest images . and if the worse happens and StockXpert is killed by Getty... well, we can stick needles into a Getty doll. but that's for later not an expert in Stock ... ha!ha! terrible pun , i wanted to say, not a Stock-expert, lol but i am a good military strategist... i know how to win wars... I am Perseus , remember ? ha!ha!
268
« on: January 07, 2010, 12:07 »
The only reason I can see for them keeping StockXpert open is that they have lots of images that istock don't have. Perhaps they will add those in to a new istock collection at some point in the future and close StockXpert down?
Yes but what if those images will migrate there, will they go through another inspection process? That sounds insane.
Having said that I must admit that after Christmas StockXpert is literally dead for me... I have images submitted but I won't make them be reviewed until someone officially will clear the site's future out.
hmmm
ciao Guisseppe .. , hey sharpshot. for one thing, like Guiseppe said, it won't happen, because many of you i am sure had 100% approval for these StockXpert images that were or could have been rejected by IS. also, it will not happen because we are not exclusive for collection. worse ... it will drive IS exclusives into a tsunami of rage war if this migration happen, you will literally see the biblical "gnashing of teeth" between the devils and demons
269
« on: January 07, 2010, 11:54 »
kick all your sorry arses in stock photography... esp those who supported subs, and now are screaming foul and those who kept their blooming heads in their rear end when we needed to stand up and speak up.
270
« on: January 07, 2010, 11:47 »
Yea... starting a new micro because it's worthless and most of contributors will never reach payout limit anyway ? Then never close the agency, for you to never have to make a final payout. Then get yourself vacation in Honolulu. [/quote] lol, yes, why don't we all group together and start our very own stock site, and call it what Racephoto calls, "CRAP STOCK".. and after a couple of years, we can close it and all celebrate in Honolulu with the money that did not reach payout. it might be a great idea, instead of us spending hours making great photos and uploading to micro sites who seem to prefer paying us SUB-level (ha!ha bad pun) commissions , don't you think? moreover, we don't even need to ask for contributors as our joint portfolio would make us the fastest growing micro sites on day 1.
271
« on: January 07, 2010, 11:40 »
People really like 30 cents commission it's amazing
well, i just learned that the subs model was actually SS idea. and based on what i read here in this forum, SS is the all time favourite of contributors. so, ya, it appears to be so... if 30cts relate to subs, and SS is the most popular, then yes, you are right, ppl crave for 30 cents. i , on the other hand, think it's absurd for anyone to spend money getting the best camera and best glass to shoot the best photographs, only to earn 30 cents. for chrrrrrrrrt sake, don't count me in with the rest of these beggars. i don't work for peanuts, no matter how many nuts they sell for me. actually, someone else pointed out too, StockXpert was doing great until subs came to f it all up. well said.
272
« on: January 07, 2010, 11:16 »
StockXpert was one of my top 3 earners back before subs. Since then it's been a downward spiral, and doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.
my guess (and it's just that... a guess) is that StockXpert is going through some inner conflict .. if H.O. wanted to pull the plug of a dept or a branch, the last thing they would do is continue to spend money to keep it viable. meaning, if Getty planned to kill StockXpert they would have stopped paying reviewers to approve new images. it would be crazy in the eyes of Finance Dept for the CEOs to instruct StockXpert to continue to accept new images IF Getty plans to "just terminate it" at a certain deadline this year. I realise that when you talk about Getty, you cannot expect rationality... still, in business we all have the same mentality: we don't spend money on a lost cause, we cut off their budget immediately; up to now, this has not been so with Getty's treatment of StockXpert. once again , a reiteration, only a guess. stranger things have happened in the business world. so, let's wait and see and hope for the best for StockXpert. one more thing. as some of you pointed out, StockXpert was one of the most successful business model for a starter micro stock site. if this is so, only a mental midget of a CEO would want to kill it rather than continue its existence. i would not kill it, i would sell it to someone else. so there, we'll see if really mental midgets are running the control tower for Getty . if so, i would stay away from anything related to Getty
273
« on: January 06, 2010, 16:04 »
actually there is a simpler way.
my colleague, a canadian music composer, stated to me that during the time when mp3 was fledgling representing indie musicians, canadian musicians needed only to submit their SIN (if you're canadian ), and the equivalence in other treaty countries , and no tax withheld would apply. this has to be linked to a canadian address, not a p.o. box, or whatnot.
there was no need for anything other than your Social Insurance Number, and a canadian home address.
i mention canadian because my colleague is canadian.
I am canadian and I went through this process before with SS a few months ago and the IRS would not take my SIN. Denis
it figures. that must have been during the time when Reagan and Mulroney were jigging to When Irish Eyes are smiling and ties were closer bet Canucks and Yanks
274
« on: January 06, 2010, 15:46 »
actually there is a simpler way.
my colleague, a canadian music composer, stated to me that during the time when mp3 was fledgling representing indie musicians, canadian musicians needed only to submit their SIN (if you're canadian ), and the equivalence in other treaty countries , and no tax withheld would apply. this has to be linked to a canadian address, not a p.o. box, or whatnot.
there was no need for anything other than your Social Insurance Number, and a canadian home address.
i mention canadian because my colleague is canadian.
275
« on: January 06, 2010, 13:58 »
i joined 3dstudio due just out of curiousity. had 20 images and forgot about it completely because i felt there should be a bit of a QA to restrict too many snapshots and you know what.
then , again out of curiosity , i checked last month and found i had $5 for one dl, which isn't bad for one dl and 20 images.
as much as i still feel there should be some Quality Control, so it doesn't transform into another flickr or facebook, i decided to give them some support.
i agree with Adeptris, you can't really say matt and lisa did not do enough, considering the time factor. and also, as i pointed out elsewhere, if we all sat on the fence, we really should blame ourselves if the site did not make it like Zymmetrical's sad demise. we had two excellent sites before... Photo Shelter and Zymm.
i think PS went too quickly to consider themselves David and took on G-oliath (as in Getty) in their headline, and blinded themselves with the badly aim catapult.
Zymm, well... i think it turned lots of contributors off that their site kept
screwing up each time we uploaded something.
hopefully, 3 d studio will not fail in this section. their site is running well, and it's easy to upload and keyword. so i have no qualms in submitting them new work whenever i take a break with the Big 6 and Alamy.
but, i still have my strong reservations of take one take all , without QC.
i do see a lot of similars and tons of snapshots that really belong to the family album, and not meant for a stock site.
i hope matt and lisa will take this to heart in 2010.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
