|
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 - Microstock Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 53
276
« on: July 12, 2013, 07:08 »
Please email me: alex(at)123rf.com.
Alternatively you could have just emailed him, the email address is on the website.
277
« on: July 07, 2013, 01:38 »
do reviewers get paid the same weither they accept or reject an image?
The reason I ask is, I just had 3 batches rejected because of:
Unacceptable foreign language release â?? http://shutr.bz/175Xnzl
but the page this rejection links to states that my release ( iStock Spanish) is acceptable.
I have to believe the reviewer saw the release and thought " oh boy get to reject all these images without having to review them!!!!"
I just looked at the link to the info of foreign language releases. Currently the only comments to the post look like spam (they may be taken down in the future). If reviewers are visiting the page, they aren't mentioning the spam. Maybe they could also be paid per spam report to give them an incentive to look things up. 
278
« on: July 05, 2013, 02:58 »
I have another query regarding SS keywords. SS seems to order the keywords (and phrases) alphabetically even though I submit them in an order of relevancy. Is it OK ? Will if affect the search in any way ? Thanks !
It's a good idea to keyword in order of relevance if you are submitting to ft as they place more importance on the first few keywords, but for most sites including ss the order doesn't matter.
279
« on: July 05, 2013, 01:05 »
If an image has been keyworded with quotation marks it will appear with out them on ss as a phrase. So "clay pot" will be - clay pot -. If the user searched with the words clay & pot and you had them as separate keywords or with words together as a phrase, I believe there would be little difference in search results.
The point of keyword phrases is to eliminate your images appearing for irrelevant search terms. For example, I have images of Orchard road in Singapore, I use the keyword phrase - orchard road - and not the words orchard & road separately, as if someone were to to type the word orchard they should see images of orchards and not images of a city.
280
« on: July 04, 2013, 22:42 »
281
« on: July 02, 2013, 10:58 »
I don't think picworkflow is only useful for those with a bad internet connection. It's useful in other ways too. Both stocksubmitter and picworkflow are great services though.
282
« on: June 22, 2013, 05:14 »
I closed my account in 2011. My balance was less than $100, they did pay after a few weeks.
283
« on: June 05, 2013, 14:16 »
http://www.steveallenphotography.com/
was there but jumped into the pictures, yes 4 microstock agencies but mainly he is at DT
Suprising. He seems to eran 90% less per exposed image that I earn uploading at just one microstock site, IS.
Hmm. His choice of microstock agencies seems a bit strange if he wanted to maximise his earnings. Especially when you consider that he entered microstock in 2009 __ well before a lot of the bad stuff happened.
He joined DT a couple of weeks after they announced they will lower royalties for indies. If he is with just 4 micros, but mostly just 1 which is DT he's never really tried to make much with microstock, as he says himself in his post, "I upload to DT for one reason only.......to give a home to (and make at least something) from the many hundreds of images I have that I do not submit to my regular mainstream stock agencies or are not accepted by them."
284
« on: June 04, 2013, 23:13 »
Here are some of those stats. "My overall income from all the agencies I submit to has dropped a huge amount over the last 8 years. In 2006 I earned $512,000 from shooting stock, now I earn around $100,000. A massive drop!" "This time last year I had about 2000 less images on sale at DT, yet up to the point where DT dropped levels from sub sales, my average earnings where around $675 per month. (so now, at $500per month, I get roughly $175 per month less from 2000 more images !!)" http://blog.dreamstime.com/2013/06/04/my-view-on-shooting-for-stock_art39079
285
« on: June 02, 2013, 05:47 »
The below was emailed to PM contributors. As far as I see you would have to opt out of Extended licenses on PM to exclude your images from the Social Media license.
"We get a lot of inquries for using images within social networks. Consequently, we are introducing our new "social media licence" as part of our extended licences. The additional licence fee will be 10 Euro per image.
With our new extended licence, customers can now post images within social networks like facebook, twitter, pinterest and google+:
"Social Media Licence: The content may be used and published within social networks (so called share functions, e.g. within facebook)."
If you do not agree to offer your images with an optional extended licence, you can deactivate your extended licences in the contributor portal -> "policy management". We will introduce the new social media licence not earlier than 14 days from today." (Email sent on May 31, 2013)
286
« on: May 25, 2013, 14:53 »
I think when they say refund for another download, the buyer changed his mind and decided on another image, whether from your port or someone else's. I've had a few of those in the past. It sucks. Too many anomalies on 123rf.
287
« on: May 19, 2013, 11:02 »
.
288
« on: May 18, 2013, 14:51 »
is this normal?
Yes, it's common for a port that size. Also, images on dt start selling more after a few months online, so you won't really start to know how good (or bad) dt is for you until then.
289
« on: May 17, 2013, 19:51 »
The last time this was declared was when 123rf was in the top tier (briefly) according to the poll results on the right. Shortly after they announced a different royalty structure, which reduced royalties for many contributors. As far as I am aware they never regained the momentum they had when they were officially in the top tier, according to msg poll results.
290
« on: May 17, 2013, 17:41 »
You can just opt all your files out. I've just done the same. I have been independent only a few months, but have closed all accounts except for iStock, Alamy, GL, and Getty. My main site for new work is Stocksy, which I look forward to being my uber-agency. Even as an independent iStock continues to make me far more than all the other sites including SS or Fotolia combined. I realize I had less files up than on iStock, but watching files go out for pennies was brutal. the ROI just isn't worth it IMO.
Sorry but you're very green on how to get the most as an independent contributor. If you want good ROI, but are hedging your bets with just a few sites and ignoring a site like Shutterstock, then I believe that you will eventually find that going independent may not have been worthwhile (assuming you did it to earn more money). Go and get the most out of your port, I'm not saying you have to submit to every site, but certainly a considerable amount. Looking at what individual sales can get you is not nearly as important as looking at what a site can earn for you.
292
« on: May 17, 2013, 12:15 »
The first one represents racial discrimination. My parents were turned away and denied services because of my father's black skin..
Life would have been a whole lot simpler if mankind looked like penguins. http://www.mostphotos.com/1466065/two-penguins
293
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:49 »
I have deleted a few editorial pictures from SS and BigStock (last week) which went off a few days after
SS is within a few days. With BS if the image has already been online for at least 3 months, then if you request deletion it will be deleted within a few days too.
294
« on: May 16, 2013, 10:46 »
Dreamstime is the one to avoid they make you wait 6 months.
actually I have deleted (disabled) some from 02/10/2013, so just 3 months
It's not relevant if you can delete some it's only relevant if you can delete all. AFAIK they always let you delete some but you had to keep some percentage on for 6 months, even one image on Dreamstime means the OP can't apply for exclusivity.
That's right, from the time someone decides they want to go exclusive elsewhere, they would have to wait at least half a year if they have images on DT. You can only disable a certain percentage of your port immediately. Nice. 
295
« on: May 14, 2013, 12:47 »
haha nice!
296
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:19 »
too close? whatever man, SS took it so I am not really worried about CanStockPhoto
Oh yeah ss took it, hence the big ss watermark, Lol! I just woke up when I wrote that. Think I better go back to bed. 
297
« on: May 12, 2013, 23:47 »
one of the latest rejected for unprofessional composition 
I can only speak from my own experiences with ss rejections. I think your image was rejected because the umbrellas are too close to the left and bottom border. I've had similar images rejected too and I assumed it was for that reason. Having said that, you know how overly fussy ss can be and they will reject images that don't abide by their rule book, often to the point of not looking at the image as a whole and asking the question how well will it sell. IMO your image is far from unprofessional in composition and it would still sell well, despite it not fitting perfectly with the rules their reviewers are given.
298
« on: May 08, 2013, 10:50 »
#186 is not just a bubble.. it is also a "smile"
it is simple.. it "works"
Looks like a breast to me. Especially in the thumbnail.
Yeah, its not clear its a text bubble, hence I picked #185
I didn't see the breast analogy but I wasn't looking at the thumb. With the larger image it looks like part of a text bubble to me, either that or a breast with an extremely sharp nipple.
300
« on: May 06, 2013, 12:10 »
To answer the title of the thread. I've still got it. 
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 53
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
