|
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 - cardmaverick
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18
326
« on: February 07, 2010, 00:27 »
That website looks so shady! I wonder what some people are thinking when they setup a site like that.
327
« on: February 05, 2010, 17:25 »
Assuming all 5,922 photographers at their site have received $100 each, that would calculate to $592,200.
Not exactly chump change for a start up stock photo website.
328
« on: February 05, 2010, 13:30 »
Right now DepositPhotos is your biggest chance for some payout out these 3 ;-)
If you have a larger portfolio, like say 500 good quality images, then sign up with Deposit Photos and be a part of the .20/ accepted upload deal they still have on there. They're not all that picky with submitted images and you can make 100.00 with 500 accepted images. Trying to make 100.00 in royalties at any of the other sites you're thinking of would take a really long time. The only catch is that you have to leave your images on with DP for a minimum of 6 months.
I'm pretty sure BigStock has a 90 day commitment policy before allowing you to delete anything...
329
« on: February 04, 2010, 19:25 »
Thanks for the tips. I have thousands of shots, so I like to create some kind of a "game plan" for each site I do a big upload to.
330
« on: February 04, 2010, 19:04 »
How is the upload system there? I'm thinking about uploading my portfolio there. Any annoying categories to click threw? Batch processing functions for release forms?
Thanks!
331
« on: February 03, 2010, 18:36 »
Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
Yes. What I remember is (and please bear with me because this was a good number of years ago before microstock was even thought of). I used to buy stock photos and your choices were macro RM agencies. They all used to send out expensive, four-color catalogs and promo pieces. Along with Thinkstock was Creatas, Masterfile, Comstock and a few other names I could probably dig from the archives in my head if I had to.
I believe I am remembering correctly (the name thinkstockphoto rang a bell immediately yesterday when I saw it), they just added the photo to the end now. Again, I could be way off base.
I actually have a big fat Masterfile catalog thing laying around from just a few years ago.
332
« on: February 02, 2010, 14:55 »
Does anyone else find the 1099's from SS / BigStock kinda weird looking? I'm used to a multi copy thing, theirs is a letter with no other copies it seems.
333
« on: February 02, 2010, 10:46 »
Looks awful. I don't see anything positive for contributors coming from this.
You are right. Microstock (or should that now read 'RF Stock') is not about contributors, it's about buyers.
Isn't All business about the customer?
334
« on: February 02, 2010, 08:31 »
The search engine experience is KEY in having success these days, and I just don't see a very good one on the new site.
As for Macro quality VS Micro quality, I don't see much of a difference anymore for most content, perhaps thats the real reason they are dumping lots of it into a subscription site.
335
« on: January 29, 2010, 00:02 »
won't the agencies that charge more just block them from accessing their database if they don't provide correct and comparisons.
Thats another tactic I've been wondering about, all the agencies could probably pull that off if they wanted too. Remember when Tineye started blocking people?
336
« on: January 28, 2010, 23:24 »
The big issue I see with spiderpic is that the search experience doesn't seem to match that of say Istock. For along time now I've been saying this, and I'll say it again:
Stock agencies don't sell mystical "rights" to images, they sell a service for finding and securing quality commercial images.
If you look at the best agencies online over the years, you'll notice that the one thing they have in common is their search engine experience. Judging from what I've seen so far on their site, I can't search in the same powerful ways Istock offers. I see you could find it on istock, then do a price comparison via the URL, but still, at the end of the day, it seems like more of a pain for buyers.
I also noticed issues with comparisons on price points right out of the gate, seems like a big mess really.
337
« on: January 26, 2010, 23:12 »
The basic problem is that the current search technology on these sites isn't nearly sophisticated enough to handle 10 million images in any sensible way.
We all know how bad keywording can be, and how keyword spamming is still rampant, and how unable the micros are to clean that up, in millions of images.
A common problem is the submission (and approval) of numerous mind-numblingly similar versions of the same shot. The buyer hitting those keywords sees them all, right in a row, filling a page - talk about search fatigue. But what if, in a case like that, you saw just one image (maybe the most popular one, or one selected by the reviewer) with some sort of "more like this" button beneath it in case you actually wanted to see some variations?
I've been wanting that for a LONG time (especially on Shutterstock), in fact, the last time I was on Alamy, I noticed they have begun doing this. Smart move.
Getty does this. I can't tell whether I like it or not, because they try to shove all images from the series underneath one of them. So you basically get one spot in the return.
They could easily solve this with animated thumbnails showing a series of changing images, or they could just randomly select a new shot for each search, but yes I understand what you mean. Perhaps the option could be toggled on and off at user will. Ultimately I think they need to develop more advanced search options that places like iStock have, and even iStock could improve their own search options.
338
« on: January 26, 2010, 21:36 »
The basic problem is that the current search technology on these sites isn't nearly sophisticated enough to handle 10 million images in any sensible way.
We all know how bad keywording can be, and how keyword spamming is still rampant, and how unable the micros are to clean that up, in millions of images.
A common problem is the submission (and approval) of numerous mind-numblingly similar versions of the same shot. The buyer hitting those keywords sees them all, right in a row, filling a page - talk about search fatigue. But what if, in a case like that, you saw just one image (maybe the most popular one, or one selected by the reviewer) with some sort of "more like this" button beneath it in case you actually wanted to see some variations?
I've been wanting that for a LONG time (especially on Shutterstock), in fact, the last time I was on Alamy, I noticed they have begun doing this. Smart move.
339
« on: January 26, 2010, 18:49 »
Once you look at the newest images, if your like me at least, you stop worrying about the "competition" it creates. I'm not gonna get myself tied up in a knot over it 
340
« on: January 26, 2010, 16:40 »
100,000+ images in one week eh? I wonder how may of them....
- are NOT isolations
- are NOT isolations of OBJECTS
- have decent metadata and can actually be found by buyers who want the image
- involved subject matter people actually buy
- well executed (lighting, wardrobe, location, etc...)
- the list goes on and on......
342
« on: January 19, 2010, 13:34 »
How will you determine new from old? Where is the line drawn on that?
343
« on: January 18, 2010, 14:06 »
I was just at featurepics today, and couldn't find where to attach releases to multiple files and submit in bulk - and I've done this before there in the past! Is this feature gone now or am I just looking in the wrong place and its been moved?  Thanks!
344
« on: January 16, 2010, 13:47 »
OK, I figured it out! I had this issue with MANY sites, and I use Fire FTP in case your wondering:
I recently reset all my passwords for LookStat to use.... well, after reverting to the old passwords, I can now log into the FTP. WEIRD!!! Its almost like a few agencies didn't update my FTP credentials or something like that (not really sure what happened) it seems.... very annoying. If you plan to use LookStat or any other uploading services, keep this one in mind! Almost seems like some kind of a sync issue between site log in and ftp login, I really have NO idea.
I had issues with Big Stock Photo, and Stockxpert FTPs.... I'll post more problem agencies if I find them.
345
« on: January 16, 2010, 13:32 »
Is anyone else having problems with logging into the stockxpert FTP? I keep getting a prompt about a wrong password, but I've check it a bunch of times and I'm not typing it in wrong, and my user name is correct.
346
« on: January 15, 2010, 00:11 »
My brother has Flick shots up at Getty, and if I remember right, your not really a contributor at Getty, your more like an artistic guest it seems, with no ability to just send them whatever you shoot.
347
« on: January 13, 2010, 09:55 »
348
« on: January 13, 2010, 09:31 »
Can anyone here pull up the site? It seems to be down.
349
« on: January 04, 2010, 11:34 »
Is anyone else constantly getting a "Tax Form Formality" email every time they make a sale? I am, and I put in my W-9 like a week ago, and before that they already had my social security info for well over a year.
350
« on: December 11, 2009, 09:09 »
If you shoot niche content, it really won't matter, your images won't be getting covered over anytime soon - so I think it depends on what you shoot. Some subjects are more sensitive than others with regard to release timing.
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
