|
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 - heywoody
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 58
326
« on: February 24, 2014, 17:19 »
Dumping FAA as it represents a nett loss. IS and Alamy hardly seem worth the effort to upload but can't actually see a benefit in closing the account.
327
« on: February 20, 2014, 17:17 »
It's a very excellent tool - still can't be arsed to use it though as flickr probably generates better returns than IS at this stage
328
« on: February 08, 2014, 07:49 »
Totally agree with Ron. If it looks sharp at a point where the eye sees the whole picture, job done
329
« on: February 01, 2014, 09:46 »
I wonder if it is more profitable to employ such insufficient inspectors than loosing money maker images that will sell for years. I wonder what the shareholders think about this insufficient management policy.
The site would only lose money if the work is so unique that there isn't an alternative for the buyer - I'd reckon SS shareholders are just fine with SS's management policy.
330
« on: January 31, 2014, 16:28 »
Make a real refreshing change from a site that rolls out half-baked idea after half-baked idea and does apply to the entire population.
331
« on: January 28, 2014, 17:06 »
It is clear to me too a bug or a virus
Or just a lack of RAM
I don't see any problem of lighting or white balance in these images, even if personally I would have preferred the images a little lighter, but this is only a question of personal taste not a question of exposure or WB.
Maybe the inspector likes lighter images too, but does not respect your legitimate point of view/interpretation
This kind of rejection happens continuously (at least to me), at a point that now I upload no more than 5 files at a time.
They're spoiled for choice and be that picky and probably for that. Had 2 early last year like that so now I just do them a tad lighter.
332
« on: January 26, 2014, 12:33 »
My experience is probably skewed by a tiny port but, before the changes I would have said RPI in IS was about 3 times SS. Since all the "initiatives" I reckon they are now somewhere below 123 yet remain high in the non-exclusive earnings poll. Possibly some are ex-exclusive who haven't migrated all their material yet but wondering what is the experience generally?
333
« on: January 25, 2014, 19:34 »
Leo is right - this is a case of over supply pure and simple. Large volumes + talent can make money but probably not enough for the volume and talent involved. It's a strange market that mostly has the artistic merit of an advertising jingle and populated largely by amateurs who would probably produce much more interesting work without what is considered "quality" in the stock world. To answer the original question from the amateur point of view, when it ceases to be interesting.
334
« on: January 19, 2014, 17:29 »
Or when your day job employer pays you more from the time you spend smoking outside than you earn from your images
335
« on: January 19, 2014, 15:55 »
5. When you're an IS exclusive.
6. When you start to suspect that DT exclusivity wasn't such a brilliant idea.
7. When you're an IS, DT and FT exclusive at the same time and luissantos84 discovers it.
Pure class 
336
« on: January 18, 2014, 20:10 »
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
I would hesitate to put SSDs into the non-essential category. The increase in performance is pretty amazing!
I'd agree. I tested the boot time between a HDD vs Hybrid HDD/SSD. HDD was 42 seconds. Hybrid was 20 seconds. I haven't timed anything else but a lot of apps seem a lot quicker to load and run with the Hybrid.
And I'm not sure the price thing is accurate. I always believed this too but when I spec'd out a Dell laptop with similar configuration to a Macbook Pro the price was pretty close. Seems like Apple doesn't make bare bones stuff which is why PC is cheaper on average but not apples to apples.
Of course it's quicker to load. What do you spend your time on, loading or working and is 20 seconds at the start really worth the money? When working it's all in RAM anyway.
337
« on: January 18, 2014, 13:57 »
lb for lb MACs are at least twice the price - I'd prefer to spend on CPU and RAM than badges or complete non-essentials like SSDs.
338
« on: January 18, 2014, 13:49 »
They did mention last year that the new Google Images layout was taking away lots of traffic. So it's not your portfolio 
But you're right; easy uploading, good commissions...It's still a site that deserves our support, no matter the number of sales.
That's an interesting point of view 
339
« on: January 15, 2014, 17:21 »
I sell quite a few pngs on DT but always either sub or EL neither of which garner extra $$
340
« on: January 14, 2014, 17:16 »
Common marketing sense tells that the big ones and the small ones( in a niche) will survive. The middle of the road has to find something else or continue for the samurai feeling.
Post production PS is already done in the far east for a few dollarcents a picture.
I go for niche
This is true - possibly better longevity and acceptance ratios BUT when push come to shove people produce the same old stuff cos the same old stuff is what sells.
341
« on: January 14, 2014, 17:04 »
I understand the frustration, sometimes I bite chunks out of my desk but really, these threads open up about once a week - if not here then elsewhere and NOTHING changes.
The review system may appear arbitrary but on the whole it is a pretty good system. And without seeing the images people are miffed about at 100%, on screen the way the reviewer sees it, we really have nothing to say.
(Having said that I still think the "similar" rejections at DT are nonsense). Time for a cuppa.
Yes, in the whole we cannot lament, I perfectly agree with you.
But in the specific we have to.
It is not a question of seeing the images or not.
The question is:
Why one time the photos are so bad to be rejected, and another time the same photos are so good to be approved?
The problem is not rejection, the problem is inconsistency, incoherence, contradiction, double standards
How can I rely in somebody saying one time something and ten minutes after the exact contrary?
Notwithstanding the minus above for speaking the truth.. If what is being submitted is close to the standard being looked for (slightly above or slightly below) and there are human reviewers is it completely inevitable that some will accept and others reject depending on personal judgement. From experience, you can get a reviewer that is extra picky but usually based on some actual flaw however small. The only ones that actually annoy me are the copyright rejections where there is no copyright issue.
342
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:54 »
There are 2 ways that will give almost 100% acceptance:
1. Give them something a little different that stands up @ 100% (not very profitable)
2. Do the usual subjects in a way that's head and shoulders above the rest.
SS are no different than stocksy in that they approve what they feel enhances the collection in some way. Even a very well executed image that is almost identical to a thousand almost identical images already in the collection does not really enhance the collection.
343
« on: January 11, 2014, 18:00 »
It might be more honest to have a category that says "I'm not really that keen on the picture which is technically Ok but doesn't enhance the site's content" after all with over 20m pics they can afford to be picky
Exactly!!
344
« on: January 11, 2014, 11:22 »
Probably 30,000 to 40,000 contributors with ports not all of whom are in PP so 25,000 is plausible. I don't know if the larger royalties reflect something like the OD at SS or whether there are different subs packages that pay different royalties so possible explanation would be that downloads were recorded against an incorrect package - just an example of an explanation beyond "wrong amounts were transferred". The bottom line though is that it is now not possible to have any confidence or trust that IS can pay us correctly.
345
« on: January 04, 2014, 06:17 »
So the 2 months that produced much higher than usual individual royalties (which appear consistent with the published rates). We have no way of really knowing that agencies pay us the correct royalties except that we trust them to do so. Fundamentally, we can't trust IS to do this whether it's by dishonesty or incompetence - if there are refunds over this I'm gone once I get next payout.
346
« on: January 03, 2014, 18:18 »
Im no expert (I mostly contribute vectors), but maybe the subject and uniqueness also matter in this case? Although they didn't mention it in that "automatic reply", but if the photos were a new look on a subject, or really original, maybe the technical quality could be enough. It's a combination of reasons.
+1
348
« on: December 28, 2013, 19:12 »
Fair enough, yeah we are sticking to a natural style of images to start. Thanks for the wishes. If our styles ever meet and you wanted to upload something, you will always be welcome  .
Ranjeev
I'm f****d in that case
349
« on: December 28, 2013, 18:39 »
I think October PP sales were a one-time special month only, and now it's back to the normal, low-RPD. I always considered October's PP sales completely out of range compared to 'normal' PP sales.
However, they should give an explanation as to what happened.
Not just me then - Sept / Oct started to look like something different was happening and it almost was enough to get me to upload some of the newer or better selling files but only almost, so November is NOT a case of having to kick myself
350
« on: December 28, 2013, 18:16 »
I don't have Ron's energy for detective work so just have to say that criticising other people's work is marginally acceptable when someone has the gonads to show his own - anonymously it's really not on
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
