|
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 - Uncle Pete
3851
« on: July 29, 2019, 09:10 »
The filter is a goner but the Canon 28-300L is safe and perfectly clean.  This is not the first time a filter has saved one of my lenses, but I want to point out that old fashion and stupid, because I have a filter on every lens, has saved me again. So now someone tell me about "never put another piece of glass on your lens".  $50 is much cheaper than $2,000
3852
« on: July 24, 2019, 14:37 »
Original  2018? Theirs  07/12/2019 photo from Persian Gulf Member since 7/12/2019 shouldn't get away with any stolen money if they got downloads.
3853
« on: July 22, 2019, 23:26 »
Two dragonflies mating.
Sigh.......
I got that same "Oh no, you can't show that!" reaction from Adobe to a lovely video of two ducks mating in a marsh.
But Pond5 took it without question.
Go figure.
F*ing ducks? Rejected? LOL Another Microstock duck tale. They never end.
3854
« on: July 22, 2019, 23:15 »
By coming out with this on Insta, I think Nadav Kander has backed himself into a difficult corner.
It looks like the bulk of the blame is on the Big Issue, by cropping in and mitigating the window shadow. (I don't have enough English Law expertise to know whether the author has any legal responsibility - he certainly wan't trying to pass off the work as his own.)
However, as the Big Issue is a charity enterprise, and one close to David Lynch's heart, he can hardly go suing them (Obviously, he could legally, but it wouldn't do his personal reputation any good). But he wouldn't want to be seen to back down, and now he has discovered Rolling Stone did nearly the same but without removing the shadow, and that's a commercial publication.
Good summary, let me add, the person who licenses the image is responsible for the use. Someone can license an Editorial Only image and use it commercially, the liability is on them, not the artist, not the agency. The limitations have been stated, the "buyer" has decided the use.
3855
« on: July 22, 2019, 23:10 »
I think that in my country the babies don't have id card with picture. Hope that it work without picture.
In my country, we don't have ID cards, adults or children.
Honest? https://www.citizencard.com/what-is-a-citizencardBut that's no problem, Big Brother is always watching: cameras that are in public control include more than 10,000 CCTV units installed by the police and some 60,000 more controlled by local authorities across Britain. The London Tube network alone has 13,000 cameras, with an average of 52 cameras per station. The study estimates that between 290,000 and 370,000 cameras are run by state schools. But right, and the US has no official national ID either. SS release Is Fine. Insert Photo in release
There you go, have a parent or guardian sign a model release. Include the model photo, and have a witness sign, all dated the same date. But no wording from the agency, or you might get refused. No agency wants a model release with another agencies name in it.
3856
« on: July 17, 2019, 15:17 »
Yes looking at trends upcoming news technology the next big thing looking through magazines newspapers all that stuff. If images are specialist/niche the directly approaching publishers etc. For arty type stuff maybe selling in your local store even art galleries etc etc. Also try and work out what sells by looking at site stats. I even sold a canvas hanging on my wall to a visitor. ;-). I only do this for fun. If I was looking to earn a full living I would look on myself as an "image creator" I think these days "stock photographer" is too narrow a focus to make a living for most.
" Cause even though in general it doesn't seem like a good or healthy idea to let oneself be measured by one's income". Its not the only measure but if you are in this as a business its essential otherwise its a hobby which it is for me. As I said though costs are vital too...I rarely see anyone talk here about this. For example I stopped shooting models in studios as although they did sell they didn't make a decent return.
Expenses, since you asked, I don't sell enough on Microstock to pay for the gas or hotel room for a weekend shooting at the races. I do make more on scenery or historic sites going and coming, than I do from sports photos. I know this is kind of avoiding the true financial side, but I'd have all this gear, cameras and lenses, even if I never uploaded one stock photo. I can rationalize that expense which is actually ignoring that it's still a real expense?  For someone who's in this for the money, the perspective is different. Every cost fee and expense is deducted from earnings to find real profit. I'm not doing this for recognition or an ego boost. That leaves hobby. I thinkproducing Microstock images costs me more than I get back. Time... that's a cost of doing business? Editing, keywording, data, uploading, submitting. 
3857
« on: July 17, 2019, 15:01 »
...and saiboats do great returns!
...a few days later....
..returning...
...to the harbour...
...if you put them into water...
 
AKA a floating hole in the water that you pour money into. Two happiest days for a boat owner, the day they buy it and the best is the day they sell it. I still think I can make some skyline shots from the water? And maybe lighthouses. HA HA, dreamer.
3858
« on: July 17, 2019, 14:58 »
Hello friends. Does anyone have experience with uploading files in Adobe Stock one time as an raster illustration and once more as a vector. In Shutterstock where the two sections are divided this was allowed. There are also separate sections for both things in Adobe Stock, but the site rules do not say anything about it. People looking for illustrations look for them in the illustrations section where the vectors are not displayed. And people searching for vectors look in a section where the illustrations are hidden. In the last weeks, Adobe has closed the accounts of many people without warning for a similar content and that's why I'm a little scared and I do not want to risk and I'm looking for a some information here.
This is strictly prohibited. Only submit the vector version.
thanks,
-Mat
Help Mat, what do I do now. Uploaded a raster in 2014 (for example), it got some downloads, and now I've decided it was good enough to make a vector. So I want to upload that version. Do I delete the raster, lose the views and sales, possibly search rank, or what?
3860
« on: July 16, 2019, 13:51 »
Similar to those ones. Rejected by copyright on SS and IS as creative content.
Thanks that makes the question easier to understand. Maybe SS stopped accepting those, there are 63 pages of letters, spelling things, the first pages, if you looked at the link, are block letter or tiles. Some are Editorial, but not all. You can test for yourself, get some different letters, make a similar concept and see what happens? But don't use Scrabble tiles... They will be acceptable use.
3861
« on: July 16, 2019, 13:41 »
^^^^^^
Uncle Pete... It was never a closed shop, ever. You either passed a jury of editors or you did not, but closed it never was. You either had the goods or you did not. And if you did not have the goods, they rejected you - simple as that. I got rejected a few times and finally got my quality up and got accepted. All it took was a lot of hard work, skill, ability in ones craft etc. Simply put, they did not just take anybody unless you had game. Is the NHL or NFL or PGA a closed shop? Nope.
When the reply is, "We are not accepting any new photographers with this type of material." That's as good as closed to me. When some places required 500 slides to be considered, that's pretty closed. Let me say, I would rather have Microstock, or the good sites, at least hold the standards of before 2010. But that's history and we can't expect any change. RF is a degrading kind of license. I think the lower standards make the collections look terrible and lower the buyers and public impression of what we do. Thus the perceived value. This low standard might make finding our images more difficult, but I don't see weak and horrid images as competition, just a distraction.
I've always made my living by dancing among the elephants - finding my niche while preserving my life choices - retired, now, MS provides for several 4 wk foreign trips each year
Right, find a niche, do something different. I decided to shoot what I enjoyed the most. I admit that others who depend on the income or feel that earnings are the measure of their value, will have a different viewpoint. Last I checked, I will never be retired, but working four jobs or more doesn't mean I have no time for doing what I like. I bought a Macgregor 25 sailboat last year, it has yet to be in the water. I think I should have started smaller? My latest camera and lenses cost more than the boat... photos at least make some returns. A day at the races, is a working vacation for me.
3862
« on: July 16, 2019, 13:07 »
Thank you Sue.
I've tried one and rejected.
What kind of tiles or letters? Which site? What did they spell? What was the rejection reason? You can't just make a general statement and broad conclusion, without at least some details? https://www.shutterstock.com/search/tiles+spellingThousands of them, also: 
3863
« on: July 15, 2019, 11:18 »
this guy is a joke of nature...and those who admire hm have portfolio even more mediocre and probably not even manage to reach 10 dollar a months. those people probably suffer off solitude...they need those joke forum to fill their day because really i cannot understand spending time to earn a bunch of dollar and complaint that their 400 hundreds terrible photos don't sell everyday...another to follow is the desperate marbury king of doom and gloom thread,
sometimes i ask myself if they troll or really are surprised not to sell andy photos.
but the problem i m feeling ashamed to contribute to the same agency of those people. it's really depressing.
I think you would be surprised at how wrong you are with you personal insult and attacks. on some people who support and are friends with Grossinger. You might want to look again at who his friends are and what they shoot and sell. Yeah, to the last part I wasn't ever going to mention him by name. (he's got a different name here) There are so many others like him, who just suffer and can't see what buyers want is not what they shoot. Like the guy with 700 photos and $1 in DLs. WOW! I thought I was terrible. I think the problem is, new people come and think this is easy money, or upload and someone will buy them, or buyers want "art". All are wrong. I'm repeating this, not for you, but the legion of Doom and gloom. If an image doesn't have a clear use, message or is of something that a buyer wants or can use to illustrate... it's probably never going to make any sales. EVER! If someone shoots what sells best, same as the other 10 thousand of the same subject, it's probably going to get buried and never make a sale. The subject is covered. If you are shooting natural light with a cell phone or walking around with a P&S or pocket camera, snapping whatever, you probably aren't going to make much at all, because the competition is planning, thinking and using better equipment to make bigger, better, sharper and smarter images. That and the market is still falling, for us the contributors and artists. Grossinger once admitted on the SS forum that when he had over 3000 photos in his port, he had made less than $100. I wouldn't exactly call that impressive for a port of that size.
Old old, he's over 6,000 now, photos and video, as in 1,000 new images a month. I have no information on earnings, not my business. I want to see what happens after a year, so until then... Oh hang on here, that even preceeds Royalty Free... Not to get nostalgic but if my memory serves me correct if you actually had a honed craft and were techincally proficient in photography there were hardly days without commissioned work, it was really all based on your skill level... unlike today.
I look at what stock has become and the rates paid for usage of images is not sustainable at all. These days it is not even worth to upload anything to any agency unless it is an incidental photograph, and even then that is barely worth it.
So true and was a closed shop. But more than subscriptions, Royality Free killed the market for us. Also global market, Internet and computers. Now anyone with a camera can sell what they shoot and get piss poor licensing, which cuts into more professional photographers, paid income from their hard work and skills. Photos are no longer a skilled production or art, they are a commodity.
3864
« on: July 15, 2019, 10:54 »
Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns.
I don't wanna hijack this thread, but what Uncle Pete said opens up this whole discussion as it seems so valid for many other sectors and professions. It's actually super ironic in this context but the massive decline of income in my family's sector (they are farmers) is what brought me to stock footage. (We wanna produce some good and not so used up farm footage together and split the income.)
I agree very much on what Uncle Pete says about the necessity to think about ways to handle valing value and income (outside the box of usual "coping mechanism", obviously). However, I don't know if it's wise to stop being concerned about the professional, "market" or company made conditions influencing one's respective work environment and income situation.
Also:
Snapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute
Guess I should change my avatar then. Not to speak from the first few clips I'm currently uploading
You can do anything you want, for whatever reasons you think are best, I'm just observing and rambling. Mostly answering the reasons why I think, SS and the rest have lost their minds, and are accepting anything. I'm not doing this for the income, although what I make, I do use for equipment. I also have found the challenge and getting my images out, for profit, to be rewarding. Lucky me I have multiple other sources of income. I'd hate to depend on Microstock, it's just so unreliable and always changing and returns are lower every year. I also had my own business. Like farm producers, the market is tougher with competition growing and expanding. Some are just cutting prices which also hurts. My former business, which I keep alive, but is hardly producing income, relied on manufacturing plants as customers. They left the sate, moved South, some left the country, wen't offshore, and others went out of business. Overall, my problem is, almost no customer left in my territory. To Others: Yes I defended Grossinger for having a commitment and working towards his personal goal. I've already written back and forth to him and he understands the views of others who have said (roughly) number of images won't make you money. He's decided what he's going to do, and how and, that long freight train has left the station and is full steam ahead. Don't stand in the way? Also just because one of us experts says, "you're wrong" doesn't mean he can't decide he wants to find out for himself. For that reason, I now support him, instead of trying to beat him down, like some others can't seem to get over their way or no way? A person can take advice, even when they aren't asking for it, or ignore that advice. All any of us can do is be honest and give a person the facts as we see them and let them decide on their own. I don't tell other people how to run their business or life, I have enough to do, working on my own. But I will speak out and give my opinions. Take em or leave them, I don't care. 
3865
« on: July 14, 2019, 09:51 »
The only explanation as far as I can see is they want to boast the largest portfolio and number of contributors. I think their strategy is wrong but I don't own shares and am a mere supplier and supply other agencies.
I actually feel sorry for those people desperate to earn money who are lured into submitting under the impression they will earn big money for their snaps.
Yes to both. I will say though, most people were and are lured in, not by SS or other agencies, but by other artists and people seeking to earn from referrals. That's the way it started. Now maybe social media, where people find "make money selling your photos" sound like it's going to be easy. Years ago, some customer said, "why don't you start a blog, those people make good money?" Ha Ha, no different than a YouTube channel now. Many try only a small number succeed, yet the news and forums make it all look so easy. In the early years of Internet, you could actually make money on clicks, just having people look at your page or click an ad. Times change, Microstock is not what it was. It is still difficult and content needs to be suitable and interesting. Yes as pretty much everyone here will have seen, week after week, there's someone new on this forum or some agency forum asking the same questions. (probably the same as I did in some form?) How many photos do I need to make money? What should I shoot, what's best selling? What camera do I need. What agency is best... On and on. We can and do give basic answers, but in the end, each one of us, had to find our particular special interest or area that we found best. None of us can be everything. If new people refuse to listen or study, that's where the agency should have monitored and limited access or at least poor quality Crapstock. That would have discouraged the wasted time and space for junk that will never make money. As a result support has been cut back, limited, inefficient because it's inundated with questions or complaints, from new people, who never took the time to see past "make money with your photos"! New on SS, I think everyone here personally understand this. All Images Must Meet Shutterstock Standards
Lets get straight to the point- we are not looking for the selfies on your phone. Were looking for content that customers around the world want to download and use for a wide variety of purposes. Before you upload an image, ask yourself Can I see this being used by a company? and Where would this image be most likely to be used? Every image that you submit should have a clear purpose and obvious use-case. My Bold https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/earning-money-stock-photographySnapshots of the family, snaps of pets looking cute, most flower shots, or a goat in a field, are not something that has a clear purpose or obvious use. Staged or informative, documentary images of nature or animals, do meet the standards. Something that there are already hundreds of thousands of that subject or concept, have little chance of breaking through and making money. Unless they stand out, are different, or exceptional. Same as the other 200 million images, the good ones = what makes money, needs to be above and beyond the usual and common. SS must know this, I don't know why they accept filler. I don't think the scraps and terrible shots compete with mine. (even my own filler, doesn't compete with my own better images?) Every good image has a buyer, every trash Crapstock image, is destined to sit pages back in the search, wither and earn nothing. Lets stop saying stockholders, do this or that, I own plenty of stock and have, I never once had a company ask me anything. Yes there are stockholder reports, but that's just numbers, earnings, projections. Stockholders didn't do any of this! Someone up top at SS did it. Just like someone or group at IS makes decisions, that aren't in our best interest, and sometimes seem like they are totally clueless. They are a business, about making money and yes about stock value. They want to please customers and the last on the list after that and other factors is the artists. We are now down to producing a common commodity, and competition for the best images has gone to special agencies or premium collections. Not the general subscription portfolios. Video has followed photos, which were followed by illustrations and vectors being good, but eventually dropping. Devalued, and over supplied, yet people around the world are still trying to make money, as the values and returns drop, year after year. Next year will not be better than this year for most of us. Next June could be the worst June ever for many more people. The market is not growing for artists and earnings. How is this possible? Photography, art, vectors, audio, video, many more parts have become a volume business, not a quality business for the agencies that distribute the same. They keep paying us less and still get supplied with too much content. This is not a growth business for artists, it's is not something with long term return on our investment as many of us thought. It's not going to get better! I'd say stop worrying about how the agencies do their business, or why. Forget figuring out how the search is biased, what other people upload, or who's entering the market with hopeless collections. Don't be distracted by imaginary caps, maps, placement, or other conspiracy leaning claims, which may or may not exist! Maybe start thinking about how to deal with falling value and income and what we as individuals can do for ourselves. I'm no longer concerned or interested in areas and conditions that I can't alter or control. My job is work on what's best for myself and what might improve returns. Or a least keep sales from falling off to absolutely unsustainable nothing. 
3866
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:44 »
The biggest threat to Shutterstock is not the competition but itself. I suspect there is a very high risk of a catastrophic IT failure. All their boasts about their IT are laughable when they can't even get a standard email right. I also had added to it some nonsense about content being removed which was done years ago.
Aw heck, I get my email saying my photos were accepted, seven days after they are already live. The app delivers reports at random, mostly incomplete. And I'm pretty sure that they have cut support in NY and farmed more out to offshore outsourced. Getting support replies from another contributor does nothing for me. Just adds a level of distance from the real support. I suspect that's just a buffer for thousands of questions like, where do I find my settings?
3867
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:28 »
Any idea why I don't see sales!
Any idea why you don't see sales?
The Borg collective in the world trade center deemed it unnecessary for you to see sales.
The only people who can answer your question are shutterstock
Or browser settings, script blockers, popup blockers Etc. including mostly things that SS doesn't control. Clear cookies, refresh browser, try a different browser... or just complain and blame SS. LOL Although the Borgs, MIB and Luminata might have something going on behind the scenes?
3868
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:20 »
we have reached this level of poor image quality in ss?
why?
how?
can somebody explain?
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97747-my-quest-for-10000-images-before-the-end-of-2019/
first this puppet who believe to be a master of photography while he doesn't have a clue what is talking abut...7000 of snapshots repetition technically applying images...asomebody who earn probably 20 dollar month and claim to be a super expert...
then i read this indian miracle
https://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/97689-are-people-really-earning-from-the-shutter-stock/
one dollar and he cannot believe why only one dollar?
can somebody explain why ss is accepting this stufff if not they want only sell images paying 0,25 cent instead 0,38?
personally i m getting ashamed to collaborate to a company who accept this stuff.
The Indian guy, just over 700 photos, most look to be of little interest to any buyer. Four downloads. Maybe some people will finally see this and realize, they can't just upload pages and pages of snapshots and make money. We need to have content that has some use or attractions to buyers. The rest think it's some game or easy money, and will never make anything. Then they will leave.  We've seen the same on the forum here, over and over. Someone new, who claims to know photography, but they can't make money from stock. Easy enough, they are not making what buyers want or need. I started that way, watched and listened, and changed my attitude. This isn't about taking pictures or photography skills as much as content, subjects and meeting buyers needs. Why is SS accepting just about everything and anything? I don't know. We've been through this for years, I can't come up with a reasonable answer. Well maybe. "We have more photos than anyone else", which is hardly a way to sell quality or useful images? Why did IS drop their standards? Of the top and middle listed with numbers, it seems that only AS has held up their head and demanded better quality. Grossinger has set a personal goal and a mission, which is far better than someone shooting family gatherings, pets, flowers or whatever, and wondering why they only made a dollar in six months. I stand behind him and his personal project. Let me be clear, I don't think that 10,000 images means he will make any sizable income, but I like his effort much better than people who have no clue, upload snapshots and expect to make money. I also predict that he's going to see what sells, and start taking more of that kind of content. Unlike others who are close minded and stubborn, someone who goes out and works and learns, will become better a Microstock. That's the big difference.
3870
« on: July 08, 2019, 10:40 »
If the article is syndicated and used on multiple sites, I doubt that we would get multiple licenses? Example: if AP uses one of your images and it appears in 50 different newspapers, you don't get 50 licenses, just one.
3871
« on: July 08, 2019, 10:34 »
I use the Shutterstock one.
https://submit.shutterstock.com/portfolio/suggestions.mhtml
I use SS also, then copy and paste into images. SS words are Alpha sorted, makes no difference what order for the search. However SS does weight words, behind the obvious, and we don't know what featured words are being used to find or promote images or groups of images. My personal answer is, to use honest, relevant keywords that apply BEST and include good descriptions. There are no tricks or any magic to better placement, other than the only using most relevant words. Anything anyone can do to trick the system can also be used to punish placement because of trying to fool the system.
3872
« on: July 08, 2019, 10:16 »
The time lapse you linked to on Dreamstime definitely has frame rate problems and if that's what you uploaded to Shutterstock, then they were correct in rejecting it...Dreamstime should have rejected it also.
I downloaded your Dreamstime timelapse and looked through it frame by frame and there's duplicate frames.
You need to look at your final footage in a video player app that lets you step through it frame by frame is see if there's any duplicate frames. I use a Mac and the default Quicktime Player works fine for that, just use the arrow keys to step through frame by frame. If you see any duplicate frame, they you're screwing something up. I'm not sure what an equivalent app would be on a PC.
You didn't say which app you're using to process your time lapse, but you need to make sure the frame rate of your source matched the frame of your comp or project and that matches the frame rate of your output.
If you're having to do any kind of frame blending or Optical flow, then you're definitely doing something wrong.
That is really wide analysis of my work. Thank You for that! I will definitely try to fix this problem. The problem probably is that I'm not matching my source videos with my composition. I'm using Premiere for that. For stitching timelapses I use LR timelapse, but main problem really could be in main composition in Pr... I will write when I will try to fix it...
Yes, like FB said, you have 1 duplicate frame every 5 frames. This means you have dropped a 24p (23.976p) video into a 30p (or 29.97p) timeline without changing the speed. If you want a 29.97p output you need to "Interpret" the file first so that it plays faster, and then drop it into a 29.97p timeline. Or just sell it as 23.976p.
Good advice now I dopn't have to explain the same thing. In round numbers... Shooting at 24 and rendering at 30, isn't going to work.
3874
« on: July 06, 2019, 16:28 »
Dont know where you guys are But I had some very Nice vintage fender Elec Guitars Strats and teles. theres a new deal around Here So Cal. Called Nextdoor. very popular and sold Both Guitars, Very quickly. cash and a lot of cash.
Hopefully not that nice blond one your Son gave you.
3875
« on: July 03, 2019, 09:49 »
Lost in the translation: Bitli baklanın kr alıcısı olur. Literal translation: Wormy beans will have blind buyers. Meanning: Even worthless things find a buyer.We'd need some blind photo buyers? I just wanted to reply to the OP and thousands of others who come and ask and will come and ask. It's not how many photos you have, it is all about What are they? Someone with 20 great photos will make much more than someone with 2,000 average, common and meaningless photos. Think of what you are uploading in terms of, why would someone want to pay for this. And try not to stretch your imagination too much with, "well someone might want a photo of dog do on a sandy beach. Yeah they might, but how many people want that. For Microstock, in general, especially when starting out: Shoot well lighted, bright, colorful, subjects that buyers need and want. Find subjects that might be used to illustrate an article, make a point or demonstrate examples of the subject. Good Luck Assorted arrangements of assorted blank bottles, could be a background. You take the best shot, and move on, not make 50 versions, just in case. You have one image maybe two of use, then it's covered.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
