|
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 - cthoman
3026
« on: October 25, 2010, 11:00 »
Too funny. This is why it's so much safer to be an illustrator.
3027
« on: October 23, 2010, 23:51 »
I got an e-mail notice from Veer saying I had been paid, but nothing in my Paypal account. I sent a query to Veer on Fri morning about this, but have not heard back. I am concerned that it got sent somewhere, but not to me.
I had the same thing. I haven't put out the search party yet, but I'm keeping an eye on it. On a side note, kudos to Veer's new dashboard. It's much better.
3028
« on: October 22, 2010, 13:34 »
Getting the jumper cables out for Crestock seems like a good idea. It will be interesting to see how it works out. There's not too much place for them to go but up... or closed.
3029
« on: October 22, 2010, 13:29 »
Vector prices jumped up this morning with absolutely no notice. Non-exclusive files are now 1-5-12-15-25, of which the huge jump from 5 to 12 and the tiny jump from 12 to 15 make absolutely no sense. The exclusive detailed files jumped from 14 to 15 (?)
The response from admin when people understandably asked wth is going on:
Posted By bortonia:
Thanks for the head's up, we're looking into it right now.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267121&page=1
5 credit files stayed 5 credits. It was 10 credits that went to 12. Still weird though.
3030
« on: October 22, 2010, 08:57 »
[loud fart noise] I mean wooyay! 
3031
« on: October 21, 2010, 15:50 »
He's not talking about 'over the course of a year', he's saying immediately __ which is obviously nonsense.
I suppose theoretically it is possible. I'd need about 11k in downloads to reach 150,000 redeemed credits. That's with mostly 10 credit downloads which would be 14 credits as exclusive. Although, I'd assume you'd need more as a photographer, since they don't average as high. Edit: I realized you'd need to already be exclusive for the above to work, so I guess you'd need to sell 10,000 XL files or 15,000 L files to make 150K of redeemed credits.
3032
« on: October 21, 2010, 15:34 »
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure JR passed the Gold mark after me, but is now at 12K+ images sold whereas I'm on 11K with not much to spare - I think its a reasonable bet that on the exclusive Redeemed Credits over the course of a year he'd get to 40% with the increased upload slots etc if he's not there already.
He must have had some great growth over the last year. Regardless, the point makes sense. It seems like the best options are to go exclusive or leave iStock entirely. Rolling over and accepting under 20% still makes me cringe, and I'm not sure my confidence in IS is strong enough to make the leap to exclusive.
3033
« on: October 21, 2010, 09:11 »
On a similar note...
I experienced this whole "gosh, I don't think I should have to pay for it" mentality first hand yesterday...
I've been taking some college courses because I went right from high school into the work world until last year, when I became unemployed. Rather than sitting around turning into a slug, I am taking a Photography I class and one other this semester. A girl in my class just got a new imac and she was telling me all about it. She is in her early 20s. She mentioned she was taking her computer to a friend to have the CS5 software uploaded. Another person from class was there and said "Is it a friend doing it for you because all it takes is feeding DVDs into the drive and following the directions to install." She said yes, it was a friend and he was uploading AND GIVING her all the software, because gosh, there would be no way she could afford the computer AND the software. The other guy (who is also a young person, so not ALL young folks have that mentality) and I looked at each other and said at once, that's called pirating and it's illegal. She shrugged and said oh well, it's too expensive for both things.
In fact, I totally agree with her that the Adobe software is way too expensive, but that's not the point. Stealing is stealing whether it's $1.00 or $1000.00.
I don't know. I'm not sure you could learn the suite without stealing it as a student. Not that it is right, but even with the student discount, it is priced out of most students limited budget. It's a shame the prices are so high. I'd probably buy each version if it was cheaper. Now, I just buy every other version.
3034
« on: October 16, 2010, 17:29 »
I was a full time freelance illustrator when I started microstock, and I definitely think it makes you better. The only way to really improve is to practice, practice and more practice. Microstock provides a great motivation to do that. I've spent a lot more time illustrating in my free time than I would have normally on my own. You can also get critiques and feedback from the community and reviewers if you want it. All that in a non pressure environment without deadlines or bosses makes it a lot easier to do.
3035
« on: October 15, 2010, 11:50 »
What is this all about?
http://stockproject.deviantart.com/
Sounds like they are chumming the waters for new competition for us. Does that mean Fotolia will be filled with Anime and Vampire stuff now? Or are they just trying to sell images to all the people that like to do photo manipulation?
3036
« on: October 15, 2010, 11:27 »
Thanks Maui... It's a shame it doesn't work, but thanks!
If you want to avoid this in the future, you can reload the .eps file into Illy and use my ExtendedSelect script to check for any embedded bitmap image:
http://www.maps.aridocean.com/scripts_en.php
Wow! Thanks as well! I was looking for something like this for ages. For some reason, the one that comes with Illustrator CS5 doesn't work with me (Select - Objects - ________) and yours does! =D
The links palette works too for finding bitmaps.
3037
« on: October 15, 2010, 09:54 »
Maui. Here is the AI file - www.megaupload.com/?d=ZLHA780P
Cthoman - They are elliptical indeed. I just don't understand why round ones work and oval ones don't. Is it an Illustrator bug?
Yeah, it may be something else, but I remember reading someone else having the same problem on the Shutterstock forums. I assume the problem is that Illustrator didn't used to support those gradients in older versions. Adobe doesn't really intend for people to save in some ancient version disabling half the features they just created.
3038
« on: October 15, 2010, 08:55 »
Round gradients shouldn't have a problem, but I've heard when you stretch them or make them elliptical they may not be backwards compatible. This may be your problem.
3039
« on: October 11, 2010, 11:29 »
The real fun is going to start when people do get in and they don't get any sales for the fist few months.
Then we're going to see all the usual "I'm pulling my portfolio what a waste of time" threads from the same people complaining about not getting in.
Sites like SF and GL deserve our backing and understanding, they treat us like partners and payout 50%. People need to have a serious think about how much time and energy it takes to get a library of the ground and market it. And that the clock doesn't even really start ticking till you have enough decent content to start effectively marketing it!
Too funny and too true.
3040
« on: October 11, 2010, 11:28 »
Thanks for the feedback. I'm looking for something to set up a personal stock store. Vector support is a big must, so that limits a lot of these services. Obviously, something that is easy to use and upload is a good plus too. I'm still in the exploratory stages, but I thought I'd get some opinions from people here too.
3041
« on: October 11, 2010, 10:29 »
Has anyone used KTools Photostore? Or do you have another stock photo selling service/software that you prefer over that? Any real world experience, info, thoughts and opinions would be helpful. Thanks.
3042
« on: October 09, 2010, 10:30 »
But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )
I'm not sure I'd confuse commercial work with lacking creativity. Some of the best commercial work is reinventing a cliche or defining an archetype perfectly. I was never all that into editorial or conceptual stuff (some of that seems like a concept slapped onto poor execution). I like the freedom of creating bright and colorful stuff that I'm interested in. Yeah, making money influences it, but I think that is probably true with all art. I agree that there are a lot of people in stock that are just producing "me too" items, but I don't think there is anything wrong or lacking creativity about coming up with new images in a known commercial niche.
3043
« on: October 08, 2010, 12:46 »
I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops.
Was my job supposed to be respectable, reliable and stylish? When I got my BFA, I was just hoping I wouldn't be working at McDonalds.
3044
« on: October 08, 2010, 12:07 »
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. 
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
I personally welcome the alternate view. That's why I read this forum is to see what everyone is thinking (good or bad and right or wrong). I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away. Although, that worry is a little tempered by not really giving a crap about what IS does anymore. As far as revenge from the macros, someone is always claiming that one thing or another is destroying the industry, but the industry is still here.
3045
« on: October 08, 2010, 11:54 »
There's also a notion of "being original" that has spread over the microstock communities and sites. For one: if the photographer supplies raw material, then there is no room for originality.
The creative work "should" be done by people who are payed to be creative: designers.
To me: this is a much bigger issue that lowering the commission from, let's say, 20% to 15%. Photomanipulation work and "being creative" requires much more effort on the photographer's part, and they sell it with the same price as the raw material. Is this "fair"?
Anyway, just to clear one thing up: I'm not writing this out of envy or something because I don't know how to use photoshop. I was first a designer for six years, and then started doing photography, so one could say I'm skilled in that respect. It's just that it doesn't seem fair since some photographers seem to be working a double job for the same price. But then again: it's their choice.
I can't say I see anything wrong with it, though there are some things I agree with you on. It would be nice to put together a creative pack and sell it for a little more. I see it a lot on the vector end, and I'm surprised sometimes by what people put together in one file for a sub sale on SS. Sometimes I think people are giving too much away for very little, but I suppose that is the nature of the micros competitiveness.
3046
« on: October 08, 2010, 09:35 »
I suppose it all depends on your budget and skill level. Some designers don't have the time, budget or skills to create new or mash up images. I personally like creating my own images, but if it is something I can't create or not in the budget, then stock is the way to go.
3047
« on: October 07, 2010, 10:16 »
Wow. It's getting even worse over at iStock with the censoring. And look who the new user/forum moderator is that snipped the links for the "Setting the Table" search. "iStock Collections"?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1
So does "Setting the Table" have some other meaning?  It must be some kind of glitch. I can't imagine that anyone would add one strange and irrelevant term to all their images.
3048
« on: October 07, 2010, 10:00 »
So I just got the eps approvals for the first batch: jpg uploaded 9/21, approved 9/27. eps uploaded 9/27, approved 10/7.
The second batch of eps files were attached immediately after uploading the jpg (didn't know I could ignore the instructions to not do that until they were approved  ) ... hopefully this batch will go more quickly. Two and a half weeks to get a vector online is kinda ridiculous.
That actually seems fairly quick at DT. I thought it took about a month.
3049
« on: October 06, 2010, 21:06 »
Not to rub salt in anyone's wounds, but I had my first sale at SF today. Two weeks online and one sale doesn't seem too bad for a new agency. How are others doing there?
3050
« on: October 06, 2010, 08:56 »
Unless they have changed it, you needed to change the eps name to the file number of the jpeg to get them to link up from FTP. It made the whole process fairly useless. It would be great if they changed it to match the file name though.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
