|
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 24
351
« on: September 09, 2014, 13:50 »
about Istock,I have a question. Can someone tell me why I can't find what images have sold on my port. I've sold some and on my port it doesn't show views or DL.
I'm trying to find out so I can concentrate on what to upload.
Thanks
Could be PP (partner program) or the new subs payments. Have a look here http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?id=******&Offset=0 Should show you last months stats as a bar graph. The payments are for last month (if it is that) Green bars are PP, a grey bar somewhere is subs all lumped together. You can see sub sales under "Image subs" to the left of your "my uploads" page.
352
« on: September 09, 2014, 11:03 »
. . .Thats the moment when you press the button to the "pep and pop for shutterstock" photoshop action.
Is that the action that guarantees hundreds of sales as well? I didn't trust the horns and cloven hooves on the salesman! 
353
« on: September 08, 2014, 08:11 »
Subs have been about doubling for me every month (no that it's been much in total!) but this month is down to about a quarter of last. Let's hope that they indeed haven't finished yet!
Having said that they're nowhere near making up for the drop in credit sales I've seen.
Credit sales seem to be continuing to slide. September so far is no better than August was.
Stats still take ages to load on a reasonably fast connection.
354
« on: September 07, 2014, 10:24 »
I see Yuri is guilty of keyword spam as well.
Oh yes, but he's looking for a career keyworder, inter alia:
http://peopleimages.com/more/jobs
That'll be as a replacement for the one who thinks that every sports car has a blonde then?
355
« on: September 07, 2014, 10:22 »
I reckon this here cowboy has been eating too many beans. . .
356
« on: September 07, 2014, 07:25 »
I think wordplanet has summed it all up pretty well.
I can't help but think that you are overthinking all this. It's stock. Take the shot, process it, upload. If they refuse it then either put it right and re-upload, or move on to the next shot. If it's refused again, move on.
Can't say with ShutterStock, but with iStock, when their inspection process was still strict, images which were seen as being easy to get, or which didn't have a strong concept tended to be judged more strictly than those which did fulfil those criteria. I know you went to a lot of trouble to get this shot, but the reviewer doesn't know that, so that could be at least partly the case here.
Also stock isn't really art. Or at least "fine art" often doesn't seem to sell that well as stock. You may be better selling these types of shots elsewhere, again as wordplanet suggests. The whole thing of what is "good" or not is very subjective, and trying to analyse it is an impossible task. If it was possible we could all say "This is good stock" or "This is good art" and sell accordingly. If only it was that simple!
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
357
« on: September 06, 2014, 13:53 »
The next image up, the one on Flickr, looks a bit "flat and grey" to me. Needs a bit of a mid range contrast boost IMO.
As already said though, it's all pretty subjective. One man's "giving it a bit more pop" is another's "too much contrast"
358
« on: September 06, 2014, 11:56 »
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .
I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!
"Personal" implies emotionally butthurt, I think. I'm not butthurt about this. I just want to know what I did wrong. I don't understand, and I can't play the game if I don't understand the rules.
That's good that you're not taking it personally, but it still strikes me that you're trying to analyse and quantify something which is really just a subjective judgement. It depends on opinion of the reviewer you get. There are no set "rules" as such, just a matter of judgement within certain parameters. Again I will say though that I don't know the ShutterStock system specifically. I'm talking generally.
359
« on: September 06, 2014, 11:41 »
I learned a long time ago not to take rejections personally. . .
I reckon that's good advice. I don't know anything about Shutterstock specifically, but I've never thought that rejections were personal. I generally just move on to the next shots. Life's too short to worry about it!
360
« on: September 06, 2014, 09:00 »
And where is the suggestion of whoever minusssed my post above? You are perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it might have been more helpful to HC if you'd given some positive suggestions, since my, admittedly feeble, attempts:
- Leave the agencies you don't like
- Find agencies you do like, who can sell your files
- Symbio
- Sell on your own
- Stocksy (if your photos fit)
- Get a special deal
were so unacceptable.
It all sounds reasonable to me. Not much else to do really. Apparently it was the suggestion to think for oneself which was unacceptable. Funny thing I asked someone who wanted critique on a new PF what they thought of their own PF not so long ago. That was ignored.
361
« on: September 06, 2014, 08:54 »
speaking of staying with istock. If I do decide to stay with them after joining in July
I'm not getting any views on my port a total of around 10 on 250 images that's it. I don't get it,they want more contributors and their stuff but there is no buyers to view them. 
Nobody is getting many views. Apparently it's something to do with only views by logged in buyers counting. What I find much more worrying is that those logged in buyers seem to be buying a lot less of my work. Views are nice but there are no $$ for them. Also, if yours is the PF that I think it is, then with all due respect, I think you need to have a think about what you are shooting. There are an awful lot of fairly easily found isolated objects already there, and more being uploaded daily. Those shots are unlikely to generate many DLs these days IMHO.
362
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:05 »
Interesting, and as you say rather sad.
There was a discussion on jewellery photography on the iStock forums (IIRC) some years back. One member who was obviously in the know, said that the majority of jewellery seen in catalogues is 3D rendered.
363
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:02 »
I must be properly dull and unimaginative since I struggle to get beyond 30 keywords never mind 50.
Anyway, I recall someone at SS asking for help with key wording and one of the keyword maniacs from the forum picked out the OP's image of a deer as an example and promptly produced a ream of additional words including tail, ear and furry! I think they forgot to add hoof and dung pile. Ridiculous.
Yeah that's one of my pet hates. Photo of a person, they add face, hand, nose, eyes, arms, legs, etc. etc. without there being anything remarkable about those on that particular person. It then spams images that are just about those attributes.
364
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:21 »
He also says "Unless your work is absolutely outstanding"
Which is true.
Kelvin is very fair and helpful over there. Or at least that's how I've found him to be. He does tell it how he sees it though.
There would be little point in encouraging people to take yet more (and more, ad nauseam) general flower, animal, and "nature" shots.
Probably better to wait until there is something to be seen of the OP's shots over there, and then comment there.
365
« on: August 25, 2014, 09:03 »
I'm exclusive and income has been bouncing around as iStock fiddles with the prices. The bad trend is the continuously decreasing downloads. Like Paulie, weekdays with no downloads are becoming all to common. Selling price is of no matter if there are no sales at any price. PP and Getty income is only a few dollars a month most months and not worth considering for me. I haven't decided if or when to make the break. Based on early last year trends I expected to already be dead - but I'm hanging on barely. One question still lingering - if I break Exclusivity, to where to I jump? SS for sure. After that I don't know what makes sense.
I think there are a lot of us in the same boat Stan. I can't really see subs making up the losses we're seeing. PP seems to have dropped to nothing for exclusives, and Getty income, while welcome, isn't big, or reliable enough. Anyway, as far as I was concerned these things were supposed to be "extras", and they have ended up taking up the slack from normal sales. Or rather in my case at the moment, not doing so. I'm getting very near being pushed out of exclusivity. I'd rather jump I think.
366
« on: August 21, 2014, 11:09 »
My sales seem to have a cap, and that cap is reducing by the week.
(That's only a conspiracy theory, and I don't really believe it, but it's the effect. The cap may, or may not, be the price slider.)
I think mine have a dunce's cap, and have been sent to stand outside the classroom. Or is it me who should have one? Whatever, sales are absolutely dire. Can't really see the point in exclusivity anymore either unless something amazing happens for us. 20% of zero is the same as 30%.
367
« on: August 20, 2014, 08:35 »
Now to keyword etc. . .
Oh, the fun of it... 
Yeah, not my favourite job, but at least the images there are accepted, so the work on the description and so on is not in vain.
368
« on: August 20, 2014, 08:04 »
Just had a batch accepted after just under 4 days. I'm completely new there, my first "proper" upload after being accepted. The email must have gone out pretty well immediately as I had checked on the site an hour or so earlier and they were still waiting.
Now to keyword etc. . .
369
« on: August 19, 2014, 06:26 »
Good advice to read the comments made previously.
You need to be self critical to be in this business.
Instead of us telling you what we think, you tell us what you think of the shots you have linked to.
370
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:33 »
My wife thinks I am living a fantasy with this business 
We're livin' the dream dude!
371
« on: August 18, 2014, 11:07 »
No doubt it's a real deal for some people. Some of us have taken hits in income recently, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's everyone or that it's all over.
If you're really asking whether it's possible to make a living at stock starting now, then the only thing for sure is that it's a lot harder than it was ten years ago.
There are too many variables to say much else with any certainty.
372
« on: August 18, 2014, 09:51 »
so forum is just a talk, if all agree that to make a living from micro stock means you have to have tousends of sales every month
Nobody has said you have to have thousands of sales, what has been said is that you need thousands of images, and that a good "Return Per Image" per month (that is the average you get per image in your PF) would be $0.50. There will be incomes here that are much, much more than "just talk", but very few if any people are going to discuss it in public, and even if they did it would only tell you what they can make, not what you could make. But go on, you make us more comfortable. Tell us what you earn from microstock, show us your portfolio. People might take your questions more seriously then, but still I doubt if they'll talk about their income.
373
« on: August 17, 2014, 07:12 »
You say you have actually applied with these images? Interesting to hear what the results are if you have. I think the initial acceptance may have been made easier there as well as general submissions.
Whether they get you in or not though, I doubt if these images will make you any money on iStock or anywhere else IMHO. I wouldn't upload anything of this standard anywhere if I were you. If you do you'll end up like many other new contributors uploading hundreds of photographs and wondering why they aren't generating sales for you.
You will need to know what subjects to upload, and then you need to manage the quality of your own collection (at iStock at least), and you will need to learn the skills to do so. It's not just about getting the maximum number of images accepted. It's the quality of those images as well.
Finally, if you were a photographer who already had the skills to make commercial images, then you might make some money at stock if you were just starting. If you have to learn from the start then I think you have a long hard road ahead. There is no easy money in this game and there never was.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do.
374
« on: August 15, 2014, 12:20 »
Things are incredibly bad for me this month. Exclusive with close to 5000 images. 0 sales Monday, second week day in two weeks with 0 sales, half way through the sales day today 0 sales. Used the easily clear $100 most week days, now $50 is a good day.
I can't sustain this, not sure how I can afford to quit exclusivity, but I'm not seeing any other option at the moment.
I was never doing quite as well as you, but I used to do OK. I do know that we're not alone in this. You only have to read the sales threads at iStock, and to look at other people's sales on new material. I'm in the same situation though. Where do I go from here?
375
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:03 »
Last week was actually just about OK, although an EL helped considerably with that.
This week. Five sales so far. Summer slowdown doesn't explain that!
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
