|
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 58
351
« on: December 26, 2013, 15:28 »
I hope Symbiostock takes off, but I'm not getting on board yet. The problem I see is lack of committed developer support going into the future.
Sort of agree. It needs to works as a proper business where the founder can generate a decent income from it and continue to lead it.
352
« on: December 26, 2013, 09:31 »
I had a few that were sorted within a day or 2 (guess someone didn't fully appreciate the new lower standards  ) On the other hand have 2 pending in the normal queue since 19/20 October.
353
« on: December 26, 2013, 08:48 »
Same as any site, they like what they like and don't like what they don't like, their ball, their choice. IS used to be the same in that certain material would be pretty much automatically rejected so a matter of being selective, not necessarily about quality but about what is likely to get through.
354
« on: December 26, 2013, 08:39 »
No lesson to be learned here at all. I've made hundreds of thousands of $'s from microstock RF which I wouldn't have done if I'd been waiting patiently for the very occasional big RM sale to arrive.
It's my view that a given portfolio will make more money overall on microstock than any other platform. A stock image is a depreciating asset (due to the ever-increasing over-supply) and a good one is more likely to survive longer with high sort-order position (and thus actually be seen by buyers) if it has regular sales.
Yeah, actually 9797 - total MS earnings + only for MS, the image may not even have existed
355
« on: December 20, 2013, 17:56 »
Keep it as a self-financing hobby while remembering that a day's MS income is approximately 5 minutes income from the day job, i.e. don't forget where the actual money comes from.
356
« on: December 20, 2013, 17:48 »
Pete,
I pointed out that it was old in the original post so Gostwyck was adding nothing except to "have a go". I didn't give the minus to him (or you either come to that) but maybe someone reacted to a pointless post from someone who regularly does this on posts he regards as pointless.
357
« on: December 19, 2013, 19:03 »
To make money at the moment you only need moderately good product but you need a hell of a lot of it and more and more of it to maintain the same level of income as time passes. You may be essentially right though in that this has a much chance of getting contributors to buy in as any of the other "fair play" suggestions. They'll do stocksy though because it seems like an exclusive club and no risk to the "real money" they get from the other sites.
358
« on: December 19, 2013, 18:16 »
Those sites are a little harder to get into (Alamy excepted) and don't really use the micro business model. In itself MS is a good model but the returns are poor as the sites offer the same product and compete on price. If a higher paying site could corner the market by having the lions share of useful content, intelligent self-interest could motivate people not to supply cheap sites who would have to respond to survive.
359
« on: December 19, 2013, 17:15 »
Someone (Ron I think) posted over at SS. http://markstoutphotography.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/the-time-magazine-cover-photo-ripoff/Probably lots of you have seen this already as it's older than my time in microstock but right on the money. MS really doesn't provide a viable source of income for most contributors. Talk of organising the proletariat to do something about this is pie in the sky and sites like offset / stocksy are so far up their own arses that they need a torch to see where they are going but there is the germ of a viable alternative there. Suppose a new or even an existing site with normal top4 acceptance standards were to offer stocksy prices / royalties how may would be prepared to take the risk an put their entire ports there as exclusive content? This could work but only if cheap sites can't compete based on content.
360
« on: December 17, 2013, 18:07 »
Agree with Dan & Lisa. Another thing about DT is that less is more as far as keywords are concerned -as I believe lots of keywords hits relevancy.
Edit. IS, FT haters I understand but why DT? They have not spectacularly screwed contributors as far as I am aware.
361
« on: December 16, 2013, 16:04 »
I stopped uploading to SS for the moment till the reviewing gets to a normal level. I have 100% rehjections over the last few weeks and they are all accepted on othe sites. IQ is not disputed on the others.
It's not all about IQ (assuming you mean technical quality) as virtually everything will have that these days.
362
« on: December 15, 2013, 12:55 »
It isn't that surprising that a small site is trying to carve out a market by whatever means. The surprising thing is the amount of people that seem to be submitting there.
363
« on: December 15, 2013, 10:26 »
But the accepted stocksy images are not the ones that are being rejected just the (presumably) rejected stocksy images ....
I don't think it's so much a "quality" thing with either site, more what they feel fits their respective collections.
364
« on: December 12, 2013, 17:55 »
I've said this before about reviewing in general, not specificially about SS, but I'll say it again: in any human assessment of art materials there is always going to be some variation in standards, just as there are variations in the quality of work individuals produce. I don't think any of us know precisely what it is that reviewers look for. I happen to have a very good acceptance rater - 90% +, mostly - so it does come as a bit of a shock when I get a batch where 9 out 0f 10 are rejected. However, I can see that I might be working at just slightly better than the required standards, so an off-day for me, or an inspector who is feeling a bit grumpy, might tip the whole assessment against me.
We all scream and shout about how our wonderful work is rejected by blind idiots, but a decade in this game has persuaded me that the inspectors/reviewers, whatever they are called, do a damned good job. I can look back at files where I had a hissy-fit over rejections seven or eight years ago and wonder how I could ever have submitted such rubbish. There were even some files a year or 18 months ago that I got upset over being rejected - but I've since returned to them and found they could be enormously improved (after which they got accepted).
So while there will always be some marginal or doubtful decisions, I really don't have a lot of time for those who shout down the reviewers. Without them, many of us would never have reached the standard that we have, and I for one am a lot better for it, and not just because of shooting stock.
Good balanced assessment
365
« on: December 10, 2013, 18:00 »
Here's a tip. If you want to use one of these for spaghetti, BUY A NEW ONE!! 
366
« on: December 08, 2013, 16:45 »
yep, cat pooper scooper
367
« on: December 07, 2013, 21:40 »
Have to agree with KB. Keyword spamming is dishonest and, while I'd be personally be slow to call someone on it, I don't think someone who does this has a legitimate complaint if it happens.
368
« on: December 06, 2013, 17:55 »
The advice over there seems to be "if you don't have at least 5K images, forget it". I've had a look at some of the big ports and get the distinct impression of folks wandering around randomly pointing a camera at stuff - is this a very unfair impression?
369
« on: December 05, 2013, 16:10 »
Can't say I understand the question. If someone doesn't upload anything legally compromising, no worries. If the buyer uses something inappropriately, his problem.
370
« on: December 05, 2013, 16:07 »
I had a whole bunch held up pending model release (in fairness, though, not rejected) - did the scout thing, waited 6 weeks and then said, "bugger it" and just saved a "this isn't a real person" statement as jpeg and uploaded as a release.
371
« on: December 04, 2013, 16:54 »
Yes, the euro payouts do take some of the pain away 
372
« on: December 04, 2013, 16:41 »
Update 
They are not among Pending files anymore, but...I don't know where they went :/
Not in portfolio, not in Rejected files, not in Pending files...
Sometimes it takes a bit of time for files to appear - all sites occasionally have this problem. I think "under review" means assigned to a reviewer.
373
« on: December 03, 2013, 16:49 »
You can copy it to the clipboard (ctrl a and ctrl c)and paste into PS and save as jpeg / tiff etc from there (or at least you can with corel). Just did that with a basic template so I don't know whether you can get something big enough in terms of dimensions but looks like you can. If so I'd do the whole thing including you images in publisher and then copy to ps
374
« on: December 03, 2013, 16:35 »
I really don't like the lack of transparency around credit values but DT is probably the only site where non-exclusives will can $7+ from a standard sale.
375
« on: December 02, 2013, 17:39 »
Possibly.... How many of us are there?
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 58
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
