|
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 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 53
301
« on: May 04, 2013, 14:29 »
I think you will have a hard time getting accepted to Shutterstock or Istock with those photos. Besides getting accepted, I don't think they will sell very well at either site. Maybe try Alamy.
It's really a hard time. I have become a Shutterstock and iStock Contributor now. Thanks for your help.
To be fair I think tickstock was basing his opinion on the flickr photos you showed. I see u got on ss with 10 vectors. Well done.
302
« on: May 02, 2013, 03:38 »
Oh those are so funny! "WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?" What a superb response. 
303
« on: May 02, 2013, 02:50 »
If I ignore EL sales, which I don't get every month, I never seem to get large fluctuations on ss. I notice fluctuations elsewhere just not ss. I didn't see a holiday effect on May 1.
304
« on: April 29, 2013, 17:00 »
Missed out on the SODs Bonanza
In the UK it would be appropriate to respond with "oh you poor sod". 
305
« on: April 29, 2013, 13:55 »
306
« on: April 27, 2013, 11:40 »
I can't prove that is why I have done well at DT, but my sales and income have remained consistently high there as they have dropped on other top sites, so I can definitely say that judicious donation of a few free images has not hurt my sales there in any way.
I put my pitch fork down for a moment so I could type this  . I would say that your images are as strong as they are plentiful. I imagine that your sales also remain consistently high on ss, a site which doesn't push free images, apart from their 2 free images a week. I still believe that an abundance of free images on a site doesn't have the desired effect. In fact, having so many legal free images may be enough for many people who otherwise could have considered buying ms images, just using these free images as it covers their needs.
307
« on: April 26, 2013, 04:39 »
Thanks for the comment Scott. It's really nice when you pop in here and set things straight like this.
Yeah thanks Scott. We only got to 3 pages of speculative discussion. IS threads generally make for a far better read as there are pages of interesting speculation, but when the thread finishes no one really knows anything.
308
« on: April 25, 2013, 14:31 »
1 at $13.75 
309
« on: April 24, 2013, 13:43 »
A train on the tracks rolling along gets derailed and has an accident needing to be corrected, cleaned up and put back on the tracks in the direction it was originally headed when it first started.
What are you talking about a derailed train for? Can you stay on topic? 
310
« on: April 24, 2013, 13:21 »
Had 12 images in the que....nearly all of them outdoor shots in full sun. 100% rejection for "poor lighting"!
Being shot in full sun doesn't mean you got the exposure, white balance correct etc. "Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect." We won't know though unless we see them.
311
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:02 »
They took away the option of having them re-keyworded. When they had the option I paid the 60 cents a couple of times, on images which were selling elsewhere. Since then one of those images so far has had a couple of downloads bringing me $1.66. I'm not sure why they took that option away, seems like they're really trying to push their free image site. I don't get sites which push free images hard. I think they believe they can have a good turnaround of converting people looking for free images to paying customers. Serious buyers wouldn't be looking for free images anyway, why don't they spend more effort on getting serious buyers?
312
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:11 »
I've heard a few posters here mentioning the word "indies".
What exactly is "indies"?
Google can't help me with this.
indies is just another word for smart
313
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:08 »
where I earn more than 15%
What, like the 25c you get at SS? Wooyay.
Don't you know they get up to 38c per sale, 25c is insulting but 38c wooyay!
It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are an ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to. You ever get that feeling of deja vu.
314
« on: April 24, 2013, 06:50 »
0.25c - 0.38c??? why oh why would anyone sell their work for such a pitiful royalty amount? crikey, now that 15% at IS is looking great indeed.
It's 0.25 cents to $28, in general. And unless they change the rules I won't receive 25 cents again. In fact larger figures of up to $120 are not unheard of. It's easier to understand the methodology of ss's various price structures when you are an ss contributor. It's possible for those who are not with ss to understand it too, but many people doggedly don't want to.
315
« on: April 23, 2013, 18:31 »
Ha, yes lol. How do you like Shutterstock outside of that?
I can't talk about video as I don't do it, but ss on the whole is a well-oiled machine. They seldom don't produce for contributors. Introducing 25 cent subs on BS though sets off alarm bells. Will they one day do an IS and get greedy.
It will be a dark day when Shutterstock introduces 25 cent subs.
ummm..... they do 25c subs, and then you go up the tier as your sales increase
Oh so they already pulled an Istock and got greedy by introducing 25 cent subs. I wonder how long ago they pulled an Istock? 2004 I think it was, right?
You still don't get it. I read similar stuff from you in other threads and you still don't get it. 25 cent subs on ss is for less than $500 earnings. Less than $500 on ss doesn't last long. Then it goes up to 33 cents and then it goes up to 36 cents and then 38 cents. The difference here is that the subs recently introduced on BS stay at 25 cents for most people. So you tell me why they did this? Like I say I really hope they don't do an IS. We already have one ms site which lost its way, we don't want another.
316
« on: April 23, 2013, 17:58 »
Ha, yes lol. How do you like Shutterstock outside of that?
I can't talk about video as I don't do it, but ss on the whole is a well-oiled machine. They seldom don't produce for contributors. Introducing 25 cent subs on BS though sets off alarm bells. Will they one day do an IS and get greedy.
317
« on: April 23, 2013, 16:32 »
I just received an email from Shutterstock too. Not Approved - Noise--Noise, film grain, over-sharpening, or artifacts at full size. Your email sounds better though
318
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:55 »
.
319
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:27 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/stats
Total files 13184228
Waiting approval 88946
Thank you! What a strange, barren page... I always thought iStock had a 20 million+ strong library, since they've been around for so long.  This is rather surprising...
That link just goes to their homepage. Did they just get rid of the page?
320
« on: April 22, 2013, 14:11 »
"You'll make it up in volume" isn't just an ancient lie, it's an ancient joke. Slash prices today and you'll make more in the short run, at the expense of the future. Bargain basement prices just reduce the perceived value of our product and once that's gone there's no way to get it back. These facts haven't changed in 10,000 years and it doesn't matter if sales are "on the internet" or out of an oxcart.
The microstock concept slashed prices and made it up in volume and it's not been a short run. Unfortunately it started with low commissions, so although there are many more people who successfully sell their work because of microstock, who are naturally grateful that the concept exists, they got the short end of the stick from the start. Something which is difficult to reverse.
321
« on: April 20, 2013, 16:39 »
Dt and most of the others don't exactly make an announcement whenever they get a new partner, which makes things a little difficult to keep track of. I don't know how it works if some of the partners are places where you also upload directly to, but I guess you could be taking earnings away from yourself. However, it's all or nothing with Dt's partners so most people would opt in and forget about it. More info here. http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/a-list-of-partner-programs/
322
« on: April 19, 2013, 16:51 »
Ok well I just went to look at my stats. literally to see if there are any ELs. Still none, but had a buyer's referral of $59.15 on April 18. I just wish the people I refer would buy my photos sometimes
323
« on: April 19, 2013, 04:38 »
I'm the opposite. I recently started to reject 123rf 100%.
324
« on: April 19, 2013, 04:04 »
I don't remember ever having an EL on BS.
If it was fraud I would assume the fraudster's objective was to just get the images, therefore purchasing regular licenses rather than drawing attention to himself by buying ELs. I'd say u got lucky and someone needed several ELs on your images. Enjoy!
325
« on: April 17, 2013, 03:30 »
On the other hand, once, some time ago i saw some guy in Istock (non -exclusive contributor) who only with 20 photos portfolio there has more than several thousand sales ! I guess in shutter he gets even more. But it is extremely rare exception.
He may have deleted most of his port.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 53
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
