|
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 - wordplanet
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 46
351
« on: August 11, 2016, 18:59 »
EL stands for "Extended License" not "Exclusive License," so it is available on all files. I've gotten them and I am not an exclusive with iStock. It has to do with how many copies of an image you can produce, or how it can be used, but has nothing to do with exclusivity. An EL can be licensed to many people; for exclusive use you'd expect a much, much higher price. Hope that helps you understand the difference.
352
« on: August 11, 2016, 18:38 »
Yep, got paid on the 5th
353
« on: August 11, 2016, 01:20 »
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.
The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.
It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.
The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future. (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)
I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.
I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.
Try installing the latest version of DeepMeta for iStock uploads. It sets up the editorial captioning format for you when click to submit an image as editorial. It takes all the guesswork out. Then all you need to do is change the names and places. Make sure you got the dates correct in the captions and that they match the date in the EXIF data of your file. This can cause rejection problems too. DeepMeta takes care of that too though by reading the file date from EXIF and inserts for you. Hope that helps.
Thanks. I'll try that.
354
« on: August 10, 2016, 22:18 »
gyllens, you are only allowed to remove like 100 per 90 days, so you will be deleting those 3000 images over a span of 7.5 years,
http://www.shutterstock.com/contributorsupport/articles/kbat02/Submitter-Terms-of-Service-version-8
Right I didnt think of that. They must have changed it somehow I'm sure at one stage you could deactivate files but no more. Oh well then I have little option but to remove 200 of the best sellers over a span of six months then because at the moment any uploading or waiting for a change of the algorithm is futile.
Thanks for the info.
The TOS says you can remove 10% of your content or 100 images in 90 days, whichever is greater, so you should be able to remove 2200 right away, and then wait 90 days to delete the other 800. EDIT: I posted this before I saw similar posts - agree the "and" in there is confusing, but IMHO you can delete 2200 right away, and then you'd have to wait 90 days to delete the other 800.
355
« on: August 10, 2016, 10:44 »
marianne, if you make 700 dollar a month with 400 images on SS you do extremely well (especially for a portfolio with mainly backgrounds and landscapes)
I wish, I'm talking about single images that earned me $700 in a year or so on SS vs. $30 on iStock. Wish I did that well monthly with my tiny port on just SS.
356
« on: August 10, 2016, 10:39 »
My sales of new work have actually spiked for the first time in quite a while, but the thought of comps when it's pennies for them to use their subscriptions is ludicrous. Isn't that why big agencies and publications have subscriptions in the first place? It's definitely a money saver for SS because they don't lose anything, & they save paying millions of us the pennies we should be getting. And if the buyers "forget" to re-download the unwatermarked image so we get paid for the chosen images, even worse for us.
357
« on: August 09, 2016, 14:20 »
No July report yet.
358
« on: August 09, 2016, 14:07 »
I deactivated some of my images, have a small port and am keeping most there, mainly because I've already deleted a lot of them. It's just so discouraging.
The irony is that I actually tried uploading editorial images there lately, and I captioned them exactly as they request (I shoot newspaper and magazine assignments, I'm not new to this) but they kept getting rejected as not being properly captioned and I was at a loss as to figure out their objection. Meanwhile, a handful have done really well on shutterstock and one in particular is selling multiple times daily since I uploaded it a couple of weeks ago. iStock's loss.
It's too bad they just can't get their act together. When I started with them back around 2012, they earned me more per image than any other site.
The problem with many of these sites is that they are run by people who are motivated solely by profit and really don't care about offering a good product - sites like Stocksy and 500px which are about the photography as well as about making a living for everyone involved nd not just churning out profits with a dollar store mentality, are the way of the future. (I know 500px dropped their royalties/photographer share)
I hate removing images that are selling, but I just don't want to be stuck if shutterstock, for example, somehow decides to go the exclusive route or if iStock drops their extended license terms even more. If I'm making ~$700 on shutterstock and ~$30 on iStock, removing the image is really not going to hurt my bottom line. The ones that have earned me over $100 on iStock and that are still selling - that's a tougher decision. I'll probably leave them, as well as those with comparable earnings elsewhere, online. Ironically, I'd like to upload more editorial work there, but I'll have to find a different reviewer.
I'm close to a payout - a wait that seems to get longer each time, and now the wait will be longer.
359
« on: August 03, 2016, 10:23 »
I had an image with no model or property releases purchased last year for a marketing campaign. I'm assuming the company is either assuming the risk or was planning to modify the image before using it. I went to a meeting at Alamy's Brooklyn office some years ago and one of their buyers said that they budget for contingencies if they use a photo that way - putting aside money to pay property owners or models if someone objects.
360
« on: August 03, 2016, 10:02 »
Thanks for sharing your observations.
With lower margins for photographers, many are putting their best work on macro sites as it is the only way to make a worthwhile return from shoots. If you have a unique image, it makes more sense to sell it once at a high price on a macro site, since you are unlikely to get the hundreds of sales needed on a micro site to recoup your costs.
361
« on: August 01, 2016, 09:18 »
Best month this year.
I uploaded a new photo (editorial) that sold the day I uploaded it and one or more times a day since then which was nice, though the big jump in earnings came from SOD sales and not that image. It's just nice to see new images selling steadily. My main focus has always been outside microstock, but for certain images, including some American editorial subjects, SS is my best choice for stock.
362
« on: July 14, 2016, 13:59 »
Back up and running. I uploaded 2 photos at 1:50 PM and they were accepted by 2:03, the one I uploaded at 2:29 was rejected at 2:34. All iPhone images, the first two heavily filtered and I like them best so glad they were accepted.
Tried Stockimo at Alamy but they aren't showing up in my albums in the app yet, although they are on my phone. I often just edit in the phone app, but I wanted to tweak these a bit more with Nik Color Efex so I had to move them to my computer and back. Anyone else have issues with the phone app uploads when you do that? It seems like Alamy is distancing itself from Stockimo by banning discussion of the app in the Alamy forums. Wondering if the iPhone trend is on its way out? I enjoy working with filters and the freeing creative feel, so I hope not.
363
« on: July 14, 2016, 10:42 »
I couldn't sign into my account at all.
364
« on: July 13, 2016, 13:16 »
Interesting concept.
I was with elance in the beginning too. Got $650 for writing my first article on there and made thousands writing marketing copy for clients who flew me out to their locations. Then the underbidding started and it was a total waste of time.
I think you need to have minimums so the buyers aren't wasting people's time, as well as rules concerning exclusivity/non-exclusivity.
365
« on: July 13, 2016, 10:13 »
i think your question should be...
does anyone make money with Offset???
That would come under "What has your experience been?" 
366
« on: July 13, 2016, 10:05 »
I have a group show opening on Thursday, August 4, 2016. Please stop by if you live in or near Westchester County NY or the metro NY area: http://redcirclephoto.com/red-circle-at-the-upstream-gallery/Please PM me if you plan to attend. Would love to meet you. The show runs through August 28, Gallery hours Friday-Sunday. Thanks.
367
« on: July 13, 2016, 10:00 »
I've ordered metal prints from Bay Photo several times and they were beautiful. Sold a few to a local hospital as well as at gallery shows. Customers loved them. Haven't tried their other products but I saw samples at PhotoExpo and they looked excellent. Good customer service too. Haven't tried White Wall.
I've ordered framed prints on Somerset paper and metal prints from FAA and they are beautiful too. Cards and pillows nice too. Their customer service has ranged from excellent to poor.
I often use Millers for prints, albums, canvas and metal prints and all were beautiful. Clients loved them all. Terrific customer service. They do black and white prints on real photo paper and I've had galleries ask me if I was shooting film. Top quality.
368
« on: July 13, 2016, 09:54 »
Thanks Joanne. I saw that press release yesterday and was hoping someone here had the scoop. Only subs for me today but good to know what to expect.
369
« on: July 13, 2016, 09:50 »
...
I've seen greater growth this year on Alamy and on POD sites than I have on microstock, as I think many others have.
Can u tell how much images u have at Alamy?
Thanks
I have about 900 images. A small port but fairly steady sales since I hit about 600 images.
370
« on: July 12, 2016, 08:40 »
Do you submit to Offset?
If so, what has your experience been? Is it worth approaching them? What type of images do you shoot for them?
Thanks for sharing any info.
371
« on: July 12, 2016, 07:52 »
Shutterstock used to have something called "on the Red Carpet" where they would help you get a press pass - contact them and ask them what they want from you or before you attend one of these events, contact the press people for the event and tell them you are shooting for shutterstock and ask for a press pass. Some places will be easier than others, some will give you one and some may say "no," but ultimately if you want to shoot professional editorial images you need to be more than just a fan with a camera.
372
« on: June 30, 2016, 18:18 »
Got it too - I was thinking maybe titles like Newport Lighthouse, Newport, Rhode Island and possibly editorial captions where some word repetition isn't spamming but is necessary for it to be accurate were flagged by some robo-review bot? Freaking out that it's a holiday weekend and as I'm away, I'll have intermittent internet access until the end of next week when I have a solo show opening - the worst timing possible. Even with 300+ images in my port reviewing them all seems like a time-consuming nightmare, with 1000s and no idea which ones they've flagged it's just unconscionable. Meanwhile ports with 100s of similar pot photos live on.
373
« on: June 30, 2016, 12:52 »
I've been struggling with this for years and it certainly slows down uploading as you split your portfolio for various sectors, but I think it's important to keep careful control of what goes where.
Though I have very little overlap, because I don't want to compete against myself, I generally upload concept type still life images to both micro and macro, as well as some very generic travel images, which has worked well for me. I upload abstract background images only to the micros.
I have some fine art work that only goes to certain fine art sites, and other fine art work that is also appropriate for stock (such as landscape and travel scenes) goes to my own site, Alamy, and other small traditionally priced sites. I don't price all my fine art work the same, but have tiers based on the work itself. I've had work in several juried New York area gallery shows, and this work is priced accordingly on the POD sites.
Sometimes I think it would be easier to just upload everything everywhere, and it certainly would be fast and efficient, but since I license a lot of work directly to magazines and calendar companies for good sums, I won't put any of my rarer and better images on the micros, even if I think they would do well there.
I have both RM and RF on Alamy and similar sites, and much of my RF work there is not on the micros but it's the type of work I feel would do better as RF than RM.
Not knowing what type of work you shoot, not sure if this is helpful to you, but hope some of it is. Good luck!
374
« on: June 30, 2016, 12:40 »
With about 225 images, 5 new images uploaded this year, I made $28.83 this month, on target for about 3 payouts a year, not much but I certainly wouldn't pull my port. I have the same handful of images that seem to sell again and again, so I'm content there, though not actively uploading as my numbers show. Though this is less than I averaged a few years ago, the drop on SS has been much greater percentage-wise, though I still earn more there on average than on DT.
I've seen greater growth this year on Alamy and on POD sites than I have on microstock, as I think many others have. In fact, this may be the first year where my microstock income doesn't increase.
I wish I'd uploaded a significant number of images back in 2009-2012 when the money was good, but now it barely seems worth the effort. Although I know I could increase my microstock income if I doubled my portfolio, there's no way to keep up with the huge databases as an individual photographer and I doubt the increase would be worth the work. Concentrating on other avenues.
375
« on: June 18, 2016, 00:17 »
I uploaded a handful of photos a couple years ago and forgot about them, then had a sale recently and made about $87 so I plan to upload more. I have some friends in the UK who have a lot more work on there and sell often. The people are nice and they treat you well and pay promptly.
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 46
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
