|
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 - Difydave
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 24
326
« on: October 28, 2014, 11:09 »
It's really not getting any better. One sale so far this week. It just keeps getting worse and worse.
327
« on: October 24, 2014, 13:44 »
I just bought a welding mask, and was offered one with similar paint. I didn't take it because I got an excellent deal on the plain one.  Point being that I think lots of masks have similar flame designs. As with all graphics though it's someone's design, so there is an argument for getting a release or removing that. I don't really see the point of this thread though. You've already had a reply on the iStock forum from the head of the inspection team there, explaining iStock's rules on this type of shot. It's their site and they can take or refuse what they like. There is no "right or wrong" Personally I wouldn't want to risk it without a release. I'm sure I'd recognise myself "in context" if it was me working there. Many years ago I worked in the steel industry. When the last part there closed one of the chaps started a site with shots of the works over the years. It was amazing how many people without faces in overalls could be recognised just by the fact that they were there, who they were with and where, and their build and so on.
328
« on: October 24, 2014, 12:46 »
Last weekend in the month though. They do usuallyoftensometimes add the GI at a weekend. Here's hoping.
329
« on: October 22, 2014, 13:53 »
I think that I've said before, I'm not a fan of anything that requires monthly payments.
Me either, but I keep getting bills every month. 
How very true! They're the no choice ones though! (Mostly)
330
« on: October 22, 2014, 12:57 »
What worries me more than anything about this, is that unless I'm missing something, then this will end up as being yet another attempt for "them" to make money at our (my) expense, through some sort of partner deal or whatever. Minimum input from them for maximum profit.
To be fair I'm not an Adobe user. I'm unlikely to ever be now with this CC thing. I think that I've said before, I'm not a fan of anything that requires monthly payments.
331
« on: October 21, 2014, 14:45 »
I'm on a super fast connection at work (we buy a lot of images). 3 seconds for iStock, 1 for the same search on SS. 2 on Getty, which is where we buy.
That's fast! You can't tell me next week's lottery numbers using that connection can you?
332
« on: October 21, 2014, 13:44 »
I'm getting (roughly) 8 seconds on a 200 image pp search, and then the same to open one of the images in it's own buying page. Not very scientific. Me counting "A thousand and one etc". That's on a decently fast connection.
Opening up my own stats pages and so on is much slower.
Just to compare, I did the same test with Alamy on a 120 image pp search.
3 seconds.
333
« on: October 18, 2014, 09:43 »
^ Perhaps Alexa have changed the way they count views.
334
« on: October 18, 2014, 07:01 »
Can you add an option something like, "I'm not an istock contributor but am interested in the results" click button. If you don't vote, you can't see the results and some of these polls are interesting to a wider audience.
I think you see it by default if you are logged out. At least I did when I looked in on a tablet last night. Way down here since the change. Very disappointing results since. As far as other payments are concerned, subs have in no way made up for the drop seen after they were brought in, and Getty sales were supposed to be an "extra", a perk for exclusives, not a mechanism to make up for lack of sales on the main site. PP sales have been declining for some time before these changes. Down to a fraction now of what they were. It's reassuring in some ways to see that at least some people are still doing OK but without knowing their status at iStock it's difficult to draw any conclusions.
335
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:39 »
I think it safe to say that most, if not all of these big companies look at content creators as a bunch of assets.
336
« on: October 14, 2014, 05:53 »
Personally nowadays I wouldn't get involved unless I was already a photographer. Might have been OK coming in cold 5 years ago. Now I reckon you'll still have the steep learning curve, and will be hard pushed to make back the money spent on your gear in a reasonable amount of time. Most people here will have been at least competent amateurs with gear before they started in this business, and will have been doing it for several years at this time. Graphic designers do tend to do better than average though. As said by Stocked I'd at least look at the K5 II. Good kit lens. All water resistant. You get more for your money.
337
« on: October 13, 2014, 13:28 »
I was saying about days with one or two sales. . .
None so far today.
I really don't know what they've done there, but from my POV it's become totally unsustainable.
338
« on: October 13, 2014, 06:08 »
It works but why do you want to make your life harder? Just get an entry level dslr.
This really says it all. If you can only afford one camera a DSLR will perform better and make life easier. Saying things like "The g1x mark 2 has a focus ring which can help to achieve the depth of field effect." makes me think that you have been reading manufacturers blurb or similar somewhere and have fallen in love with the idea of the G1x from that. Good luck with it. I'm sure it will mostly do what you want.
339
« on: October 12, 2014, 12:58 »
You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.
Pentax K5 II is great and the Pentax kit lens is the only decent kit-lens on the market. If it's the same price or even cheaper I agree it is the better and more flexible option just not that pockable than the G1x II.
A quick look at UK prices before I posted earlier showed the Canon for 649, and the Pentax for 615. That was just a look though. Don't really know who the sellers were etc. Comparable price anyway. If I only had one camera I'd rather have the Pentax personally. I shoot a K5 and I've got an RX100 for pocketability, and I find it very good. It's not a DSLR though. As an aside the Pentax kit lens is good. A lot of my PF has been shot with older one.
340
« on: October 12, 2014, 12:27 »
There are options apart from Canon / Nikon.
You can get a Pentax K5 II with 18-55 WR "kit" lens. (Not a bad lens either) for less than that G1x II.
Images from a DSLR will generally require less processing / more will be of usable quality.
I have had images from an old Canon A65 accepted at iStock before the quality requirements there were relaxed. You can work with images from a lot of cameras if you know what you're doing (and if that camera is accepted at a particular agency), but it's hard work.
341
« on: October 12, 2014, 07:49 »
After a slight uptick in the last fortnight of September, I've had 13dls in 11 days. I'm pretty sure only my very first fortnight on iS had fewer dls, and that was the last two weeks in December 2006.
I surely hope it's true that we're going to keep the 'adjustment', which for me is more than I've earned this month so far.
I had a dreadful start to the month too. Average one DL a day up until last Monday. It's picked up a bit for me since then. Although a couple of days in the middle of the week was back to ones and twos. It's looking way down on Oct 2013. Of course the RPD is down too. DL numbers have become low enough to hit 0 or 1 on a bad weekday. Just on credit sales I'm well under half of the "old expected" so far this month. Subs don't look as if they're going to take up the slack. All eggs in one basket. . .
342
« on: October 10, 2014, 08:15 »
I don't know if I've ever met many people who get this almost mythical "average salary". Most seem to say "I wish" or "Bl**** H***, somebody must be making a lot!" Suppose it depends where you are, what you do, where you live and whether you are public or private sector. (Public sector apparently gets on average around 14% more in the UK) As far as $10,000 per month at iStock goes. I'm getting so very few sales at present that input by me is almost meaningless.
343
« on: October 08, 2014, 13:28 »
I would reply that it is very nice of them to say that they feel the price is unfair, and that you felt it was rather too cheap too with the 50% discount you had allowed them. But as they feel it unfair then the new price is . . .
344
« on: October 05, 2014, 06:23 »
You have to upload them again as an upload. Application images are treated differently. It's one of those things.
345
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:26 »
Interesting to see a positive report on sales since the changes. My own experience is anything but positive. This week in particular is absolutely dire. One day's expected "take" so far.
Would it be too nosy to ask what percentage rate you are on there?
Sorry to hear that, my week has so far been very strong, with yesterday reminding me of happier times. Anyway, I'm at a middling exclusive percentage rate, with a small to medium-sized PF. Not that precise perhaps but will hopefully give you an idea.
Thanks. Good to hear someone is doing OK there.
346
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:46 »
So far the changes seem to be working for my exclusive photo PF. Max RPD has gone down drastically for some images, as expected, but I'm fine with that because I'm pretty sure that the high price - and the ease with which all those very expensive files could be filtered out with the price slider - was a major factor in the decline I've seen.
But while max RPD has gone down, minimum RPD has gone up. And suddenly I have multiple daily downloads of certain images again, which hasn't happened for a long time. I'm much happier with the reassurance of a greater number of downloads at a price point I feel is competitive and fair, vs a smaller number of downloads at a price point I've often felt uncomfortable with. And I'm talking about my own low production value images here.
Equally encouraging is that some newer images thought lost for good now have been found and downloaded. But most importantly perhaps, since iStock is my main source of income and also a place I've invested a lot of work and dedication in, after months of decline and despair, I'm cautiously optimistic again.
Interesting to see a positive report on sales since the changes. My own experience is anything but positive. This week in particular is absolutely dire. One day's expected "take" so far. Would it be too nosy to ask what percentage rate you are on there?
347
« on: September 26, 2014, 14:54 »
About 1/125s if I'm using flash! Seriously, it would depend on the subject and so on, but I can't see many shots for microstock being worth spending a day on. Remember that unless you absolutely know there is a market for a (your) particular type of images that take a lot of setting up and post processing, then the images that you think will sell, may well be the images that don't sell well!
348
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:47 »
Sales still at Summer levels here. At least as far as the $$ go, and the bottom line is what it's all about as far as I'm concerned.
Disappointing changes yet again.
349
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:51 »
I'm not seeing any real pickup in sales. I thought it was a bit better later on last week, "a bit" being all it was. This week has started off very slowly again though.
If we're getting fewer $$ per sale we need more sales. . .
350
« on: September 10, 2014, 05:30 »
Does it tell the time as well? A tech too far for me. Don't need or want that sort of monitoring. To be fair it's not aimed at old gits like me though.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
