|
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 - gaja
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16
352
« on: April 06, 2009, 16:27 »
It seems the Search engine changed again, for the worse... 
Yap. The whining mob got what they wanted. They're so happy now...
Yap. Happy little whiner is doing a happy dance right now, photoshopping like crazy to get back on track. 
353
« on: April 06, 2009, 16:25 »
It makes DT stupid for cornering its contributors by not allowing a mass de-activate button where they can de-activate all photos eligible.
What other site has such a button? At least DT answers. Crestock hasn't any deactivate button and they even ignore mails.
Crestock deleted my account without any problems and replied very politely to my email where I asked them to delete it. But then I'm a small fish, and nothing they would regret tossing back into the sea. Also, I think it helps asking them in Norwegian. 
354
« on: April 06, 2009, 12:52 »
Why is Dreamstime obligated to make it easy for people to remove their portfolios? Their 6 month hold on images is clearly stated in the TOS you are supposed to read when you sign up.
Because it is the artists' work. The bank doesn't make it hard for you to remove money from your account at an ATM. Just because they have it, doesn't mean they should get to keep it.
How easy it is to withdraw money from a bank depends on what kind of account you have chosen. If you choose the accounts with the best interests, you normally have to tie up your money for a year or more. So it is a choise you make when you upload a picture; do you want to earn 50% and thereby not be able to remove the picture for the next 6 months, or do you want to choose other accounts where you get less interest, but it is easier to back out.
355
« on: April 01, 2009, 08:36 »
The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get. The only pictures I have sold the last days, are the ones that are similar to my bestseller. My new pics hardly get a view.
@Vonkara; I see that pancaketom managed to explain where I failed. And there certainly are plenty of photos from Greenland. If the buyer goes in and changes to "sort by relevancy", he'll find them. But it's an extra obstacle, and since all humans by default are lazy, it's an argument against searching and buying from Dreamstime.
356
« on: March 31, 2009, 07:40 »
They are having hickups. I got in a few minutes ago after some down time, only got time to see a refusal, before they went down again. 
357
« on: March 31, 2009, 07:28 »
Oh, have they changed the default to bestsellers? No point in uploading new pictures, then. It must be a bit frustrating for buyers too, since they don't get the most relevant pictures with a simple search, but have to go in and change settings. Take "Greenland" as an example: Only two of the pics on the first page are from Greenland, the others are maps, globes or pictures of green fields. It's a beautiful goat, but I can't really see a travel agency usng it for a brochure about Greenland...
Not a change I like, in contrast to the new upload which I think was a change for the better.
358
« on: March 30, 2009, 12:45 »
I think that a bigger goal for me in the immediate future would be to build a dedicated shooting room where the lights are always up and there's NO TOYS to pick up. But the chances of that happening are about as good as earning 10,000 per month. 
Maybe a good goal would be to earn enough to pay for a maid? I sure wouldn't mind someone cleaning around me so I could get more time to work with my pics. I'm much more modest than those of you that do this for a living. My goal for this year is to get 100 pics online and earn enough to reach payout on DT. Then the next goal will be 500$ and 500 pics, hopefully within 2010. After that only the sky is the limit. I certainly can see myself doing some kind of photography/art when I retire in 30-40 years. I love my daytime job too, so I have no plans to spend all my time with photography.
359
« on: March 27, 2009, 14:44 »
I got this, among some other comments, in a rejection resently. It was a bit annoying, because my foreign words are the name of the festival I had taken pictures of. A buyer could easily use these words in a search. Of course I can make a comment to the editor about that, but it has never been a problem before.
360
« on: March 27, 2009, 14:40 »
We increased the team significantly lately, so next week you should see a pending line close to 0. Which is a first thing in years.
The review times are much faster now, down from a week to only a day or two. It's much appreciated! I got a very helpful answer the one time I questioned a refusal at DT. It didn't get accepted, but I got a more logical reason than the initial "not suitable for stock", and some helpful tips.
361
« on: March 24, 2009, 16:19 »
Suddenly they are getting entertaining, with people threathening to leave, swear words and arguments. Have the moderators left the room, or is it that time of the month? Is it like this every evening? No wonder some posts get deleted in the mornings... One example: http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_16798
362
« on: March 20, 2009, 15:18 »
They take my isolations, but the other stuff has the same AR as normal.
363
« on: March 19, 2009, 14:33 »
Could it be for a kid's book? They often have pictures of big machines. Some of them are printed in large numbers in many countries.
364
« on: March 17, 2009, 15:20 »
I've seen a lot of their pictures in norwegian magazines. Not impressed by the general quality, but it looks like they sell in Scandinavia.
365
« on: March 16, 2009, 11:22 »
Well, try "Shetland", and then "Shetland NOT dog NOT horse", and you will see that you should include obvious keywords so that buyers can find the pics they are looking for.
366
« on: March 14, 2009, 18:13 »
I usually sort by descending downloads. But try e.g. "peony isolated white". The first hits are good, and then you get a bunch of sunflowers.
Or "anthracite". That can either be a dark grey color, or high quality coal. I don't see how timber, or pressed brown coal fits into that keyword?
367
« on: March 14, 2009, 17:42 »
I usually do a couple of searches when I plan to upload new photos. To check if the subject is well covered, if it's selling, and if there are any keywords I've forgotten. And every time I get a lot of pictures that are completely off topic.
I'm sure most of you've seen the same thing. What do you do? Click the report-button, leave a message for the photog, or move on and forget about the whole thing?
368
« on: March 08, 2009, 12:38 »
Great analogy! I'll have to remember that.
It has been around for a while, but I guess that with Obama, you finally discovered socialism in the US.
:lol:
369
« on: March 06, 2009, 18:13 »
Funny how differently they interpret the laws. But thank you for letting me in on your results. Doesn't seem like there are any copyright problems, then. Only a MR in some agencies.
370
« on: March 02, 2009, 07:56 »
Thank you both! Please let me know what you find out, elvinstar. 
371
« on: February 27, 2009, 21:00 »
I've noticed there are quite a few medical images on the stock sites. A search for x-ray on shutterstock gives 1700 results, and maybe half of these look like just plain shots or scans of the originals. But who has the copyright of such pictures? The hospital, the doctor/nurse/midwife who took the picture, or the pasient? Since I'm so "lucky" that my kids that have been in and out of hospitals, I have quite a few nice images. Can I just upload them without asking for permission? I guess there is no reason to attach an MR? E.g. to a brain scan.
372
« on: February 26, 2009, 05:14 »
(edited)
I have many more from this series, but I only upload the pictures where I can crop out most of the faces. I have some of the actual killing, where I've been considering making the people into silhouettes, but letting the whales remain photos. But that's maybe to artsy for stock?
gaja , you said "... considering making the people into silhouettes"..
i don't think that's allowed in editorial. to alter the image.
If the people were silhouettes, it could be RF.
373
« on: February 24, 2009, 06:30 »
Well, the subject of my editorials are not exactly beautiful, but they got accepted. They have a lot of views, but only one sale.   I have many more from this series, but I only upload the pictures where I can crop out most of the faces. I have some of the actual killing, where I've been considering making the people into silhouettes, but letting the whales remain photos. But that's maybe to artsy for stock?
374
« on: February 21, 2009, 11:54 »
I have at least seen a large difference in the speed of the reviews. I don't have enough experience or data material to tell if there are more or fewer rejections now than before, but it would be logical to accept fewer images, considering they have reached 5 mill.
@louates: LOL!
375
« on: February 18, 2009, 04:44 »
Jeg fikk svar p et annet forum av ei som driver med copyright-lover. Hun sa at i utgangspunktet sier ndsverksloven at alle bygninger kan fotograferes. Men hvis arkitekten eller huseieren misliker at huset hans blir brukt i reklame, s kan han g til sak, og da er det like ofte han som du som vinner.
Man br derfor enten f tillatelse, eller ta bilder som er s generiske at de ikke kan kjennes igjen av eier/arkitekt. Og det er vel egentlig like lurt hvis de skal brukes i stock?
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
