|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
3226
« on: June 25, 2014, 01:00 »
3227
« on: June 24, 2014, 19:26 »
I have so few files left at IS that I can't see trends, but I did notice that in my monthly stats for May it shows I have two sub (gray) downloads on May 21st. If I look at my_uploads (and click Image Subscriptions) I see one subs for May 21 and one for May 22.
It seems that something is fundamentally wrong when they can't agree in two parts of the interface on what day something occurred. I realize that it's 56 cents either way, but something's clearly amiss in their reporting software.
3228
« on: June 23, 2014, 16:27 »
I saw this originally back in March when it was first posted, and during an insomniac period tonight (too hot and muggy) I watched it again. I hope it is of some interest to illustrators, which I am not btw, but still found it a good watch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26465761
Lovely story about someone who clearly lives - and loves - her work. I hope she does well with the books, and possibly it'll lead to additional commissions or other ways for her to make a living from her work. A great antidote to the business school approach to life 
3229
« on: June 23, 2014, 16:17 »
It worked for me - all of two days. Now it's broken again...
Ditto. Had to log in this morning. Just did the afternoon check and had to log in again.
3230
« on: June 21, 2014, 16:34 »
Seems to be working for me. Logged in yesterday, but when I returned today, no login required.
3231
« on: June 19, 2014, 15:22 »
It's about control of your work as much as anything else - who sells it, at what price; can you delete the image yourself at a moment's notice; do you trust the agency (and any employees/contractors) with your full resolution unwatermarked images; do they pay out on time.
If you view your images as having value (something clearly demonstrated if you've been selling stock for a few years and making money), you don't just hand them over randomly to anyone calling themselves an agency.
You can read on MSG about some of the agencies that have come and gone over the last decade. You can read a recent trainwreck when DepositPhotos allowed a "partner" - who they said was using the reseller API and thus not really a partner - to sell for high per image prices and pay the image owner a subscription royalty.
All agencies are not equal. Be careful about who you decide to do business with. Read the contributor agreement and license terms before uploading.
3232
« on: June 19, 2014, 10:28 »
I received the e-mail, but I don't plan to partner with them in hosting a local art event, so I didn't take the survey.
The only difference in my e-mail is that it started "Hi Jo Ann,"
3234
« on: June 18, 2014, 19:07 »
In 20 years of supporting web browsers, the clear your cache and/or delete cookies helps a problem about 1% of the time. It's the tech support version of take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.
But at least it's less painful than "reinstall the operating system" that has come up more than once in the past during support calls with people looking to get you to go away I didn't expect it to work, but you follow along to remove another excuse from the list.
3235
« on: June 18, 2014, 12:27 »
I cleared my cache and cookies (Chrome, Mac - OSX Mavericks) and logged in earlier this morning.
Just went back to the site and had to log in again, so I don't think the problem is fixed.
3236
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:55 »
So I watched it.
Lots was about Getty's editorial side. Sort of odd mixing in the creative (goldfish and horse - although I have no idea what you'd use that mane picture for) with the editorial as the users of both are so different.
It would have been a better talk if he would have stopped boasting, especially the parts about how much he's given to AIDs awareness - it added nothing to the message about the power of images.
I think Getty's trying to figure out how to reposition themselves but he had the awkward task of saying how powerful their existing images are and on the other how they're re-imagining things with new imagery to be more authentic.
He reminds me of someone's Dad trying to be cool when their kid's friends come over - clearly out of his element but blissfully unaware.
3237
« on: June 18, 2014, 11:21 »
To the OP: you started this topic, inviting prospective contributors to have a look. So I find the "it's just beta" comments a little defensive. Your site is, IMO, not really ready for a public walk through, but given that you wanted us to look at the beta site, I'd suggest you just make a list of all the broken/missing/confusing things we found and use the feedback to your advantage. http://stock.photorankr.com/terms.phpI found these terms while looking at the stock.coverspash.com link you pointed me to. In addition to lots of references to photorankr, Campaign Tender, Success Fees (which I assume are obsolete), you have nonsense like the following: " "Model Release" "Image Provider Award Amount" means a written release signed by or on behalf of any living person or the estate of a deceased person who is depicted in whole or in part in any photographs; " and ""Award Amount" or "we" means the amount to be paid by the Campaign Tender Holder for an image or images, as the case may be, as specified in a Campaign; " The word "we" means an amount of money?? The stock site has lots of images with no keywords (tags) at all and very few on lots that I looked it. You probably should consider requiring some keywords before images go live on the site. For example, the image on your home page (which I assume is Santorini) isn't clickable and I couldn't find it searching for Santorini or Greece. If I liked it and wanted to buy it, I think it'd be a good idea to make that easier. Some images are free - confusingly with three sizes all priced at $0.00 - and some are priced high enough that I think buyers would walk. It's good that you can sort results by price, both high to low and low to high. It's good to be concerned about photographers, but if you're going to try to license images, you also need to make the site appeal to buyers - otherwise, what's the point? Right now, I'm not seeing anything that isn't already on many other sites already, so what do you think will bring buyers to you? Are you hoping that your contributors will market the site or are you planning to do that? Are you exercising any control over what's uploaded - technical quality, editing or ...? I'm assuming that you aren't - just looking at the images already on the site. Have you given any thought to how a free-for-all collection with poor keywording, poor search and no new features might make a place for itself among the many other sites that currently license images?
3238
« on: June 17, 2014, 20:30 »
I took a look at your site and I'm somewhat confused.
The site says that there are 120,000 photos uploaded, but other than a handful of newest, favorited and editor's choice, plus a couple of demonstration galleries, how do I look those photos?
None of the demos appeared to show anything for sale - is there somewhere we could see how you present work for sale and how searches operate? I couldn't find anywhere to search for anything.
I must be missing something, but I'm not seeing "the ideal photography platform online" just looking around from the link you gave.
3239
« on: June 17, 2014, 13:44 »
I just noticed that the first page showing in RF has considerable overlap with those showing as RM. I clicked on one at random, and it's marked RF AND RM, with no obvious reason why anyone would choose to buy RM at a higher price than they're charging for full size RF, with no exclusivity.
I had seen some like that too. I think that the person offering them hasn't got a clue what they're doing. I saw one where the RF license was cheaper and offered more rights than the RM license. It's an IQ test for the buyer. I don't believe FAA is approving or monitoring license terms at all, so they'll let contributors do whatever they want. Sean (Mr. FAA) seems to believe he knows more than those of us who've been doing this for a decade, so I'm not inclined to take another tilt at that windmill (I participated in the discussion on FAA when this was in beta).
3240
« on: June 17, 2014, 13:40 »
I don't know what to think - had a phone call from FT, they asked me about the reason why I left and if I can come back!  
In almost every other case, I would think of this as a good sign. A business that wants to know why, if they messed up, things went wrong and if there's something they could do to improve is often a good one. These are the sorts of behaviors typically seen in someone that cares about the business, its long term prospects and that it meets its own high standards for performance. I think that seeing how a business handles a messed up situation often tells you more about them than when everything is humming along smoothly. However... When a company has a long track record of just about every bad thing you can imagine in dealing with their suppliers (i.e. us) - the biggest and most recent sign being that they told contributors initially that they had to leave Fotolia to opt out of the DPC - I'd be inclined to view such contact negatively. If a business only does the right thing under severe pressure, once the pressure's off, they'll likely revert to type and start mistreating suppliers again.
3241
« on: June 17, 2014, 13:28 »
I just tried going to the site again and was asked to login, so I don't think the problem is fixed.
3242
« on: June 17, 2014, 09:46 »
To answer an earlier question, my bookmark is for http://www.123rf.com/sellimages.php and I had to log in this morning. I'll try again later in the day and see if it asks.
3243
« on: June 16, 2014, 10:04 »
I thought I'd have a look at the site and its images (I couldn't recall anything about them) but a search attempt failed with this message:
Too many users are trying to access. Please wait for a while and try again later.
I followed their suggestion to try something else "You can also search from :CategoriesFeatured PhotosFeatured Illustrations", but Featured Photos put up a white page
Does their site typically work smoothly?
3244
« on: June 15, 2014, 17:32 »
After a long hiatus, in May I started uploading work to 123rf again.
May 21st I contacted support because I noticed new images are put at the very back of the search results if you click the "New" tab - the very opposite of what I'd expect.
New images do appear a bit closer to the front by relevance (the default) and other criteria (Variety), which explains the sprinkling of sales from the 300 or so new images I uploaded.
May 26th support wrote back that they'd forward the issue to IT for "further investigation and will revert back to you once we have resolved the matter"
I haven't heard back. New images are still at the back and I haven't uploaded since then as it seems like a bad idea to have new work buried like this.
I can only guess that they don't think this is a priority - a search in upload (or approval date) order is about as simple as it gets - no secret sauce involved - and yet the problem isn't fixed.
I'm very disappointed that they just have just let this sit. I'll let my existing work sell and wait for some notification of a bug fix before I resume uploading
3245
« on: June 13, 2014, 13:57 »
Congrats! That's great. Now my interest is renewed. Hmmm...
What's that old expression about one swallow not making it Spring? I only posted because I'd said I doubted it would generate sales - i.e. I was wrong, and it was the first sale. I still don't see how it can really take off - but as CanStock has had a dismal June for me - and is a very low earner anyway - that one sale on pixels.com beat my CanStock total so far in June by $2
3247
« on: June 13, 2014, 13:13 »
When I try to get into Fine Art America, I always end up on pixels.com (without trying anything fancy to get into FAA).
I'm not seeing what you're seeing. I via Google (versus my bookmark) I get to fineartamerica.com as expected.
3248
« on: June 12, 2014, 19:11 »
Chrome Mac (mavericks) and it's still requiring a login every time.
3249
« on: June 12, 2014, 19:10 »
...Now... to see if I've got anything that would fit into their collection.
That's the only issue I have I love the idea of Stocksy and I'd be willing to do exclusive images, but while I don't think my images are typical stock, they're not the Stocksy look either. My hope is that as they grow, they might broaden their "looks" to include a few that I might be a fit for.
3250
« on: June 12, 2014, 09:37 »
I did a search for one of my images from the licensing part of the site (RF in my case) and then clicked on the link for my portfolio (my name) from that page. That displayed my RF licensable portfolio (versus my full portfolio as you'd see it on FAA).
I looked at some of the prices people have assigned and it's all over the map. I see work from stock artists that is available on Shutterstock and elsewhere and an RF license on pixels.com is set for $260 for the original size. I can't see the logic in that. And I'm talking about images of fruit and such.
There's one artist who has a lovely oil on canvas of a male torso and the full size (about 5K x 9K pixels) is set for $1,560 for an RF license.
As a buyer, you can't see the prices from search results, or sort by price, so I can't see this being a very appealing site for general use. If for some reason you need to license a particular image and it's only available there, it might generate a sale.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
