|
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 - Pauws99
3926
« on: January 28, 2016, 14:38 »
In the end the only stats that you can rely on are your own.........and the only thing you can change is your portfolio and where you choose to put it
3927
« on: January 28, 2016, 14:28 »
Unless you know something I don't Minscer its very hard to determine what keywords customer actually search for to retrieve our images on. SS give some info on what is found and Dreamstime on the search used for the most part the terms are blindingly obvious but in some cases on Dreamstime the search words have nothing to do with the image WHATSOEVER and do not appear in the keywords. Personally I think time is better spent on creating new images than tweaking existing failures but if it works for you then great.
3928
« on: January 27, 2016, 17:09 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock 
One middleman ending up in control of a market isn't 'competition', it's the opposite.
I don't think this is the case according to the poll on the right they have about 30% of the market which is too high but hardly "control"
They aren't quite there yet but the handwriting is on the wall. They don't need 100%; they're already big enough that they control price and no new competitors can come in. The remaining ones are being steadily squeezed out or sold off. And don't pin your hopes on Adobe; they're just acquiring stock archives to wring more money out of Photoshop.
Last time I checked Fotolia were accepting new images while I agree there is a danger its a much more open market than in the days of macro sites when a small cabal of suppliers held sway and of course Getty still take full advantage of their near monopoly of historic pics
3929
« on: January 27, 2016, 16:55 »
Yep processing is taking a long time plus they rejected all of my last batch..Update and most of the one after....and didn't tell me. Most of the time they are quite lenient but every now and then a harsh review takes place. Sales have tanked too recently.......o well
3930
« on: January 27, 2016, 16:51 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock
Competition is good and improves our work. I have no problem with the merit system as long as the search cards are not stacked against you. That was the case before shutterstock introduced its post IPO search to increase stock prices.
Great for Jon and friends but crap for the rest of us. The new tiered EL's allow to SS to manipulate maximize profit further.
Having reread what you said I think I was being unfair although wouldn't be simpler for SS to simply pay a flat rate to everyone rather than create sophisticated algorithms and risk alienating customers. I don't have the evidence but couldn't it just be that the tide of new images is flooding you like everyone else?
3931
« on: January 27, 2016, 16:45 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock
One middleman ending up in control of a market isn't 'competition', it's the opposite.
I don't think this is the case according to the poll on the right they have about 30% of the market which is too high but hardly "control"
3932
« on: January 27, 2016, 15:09 »
This is getting circular but looking at my own sales in no way do I think my best pictures technically or artistically are my most successful it may have more do do with the concept or it may be our old friend luck ;-). I believe that we and the sites are far more concerned about technical quality than 99% of customers.
3933
« on: January 27, 2016, 13:46 »
Its called competition I'm afraid you might have to get used to it.....just like the old pros who used macrostock
3934
« on: January 27, 2016, 12:58 »
Denial is a luxury and can be costly, in fact it has gotten us where we are today!
Those who regularly produce advertising & promotional material have very little time to find images and deliver projects. They have bosses and clients breathing down their back asking them to deliver.
Good enough is the order of the day. They do not have time to wade through pages of images to find a perfect fit.
You are free to produce "good enough" photos, if you believe it works for you.
My goal is to produce the quality able to push my photos as high as possible on the top popular/relevant pages, because these are, strangely enough  , my best sellers.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
I produce the best I can in a reasonable time at low cost if I were to produce super high quality pics using international models and Hasselblad cameras I wouldnt be selling them on microstock
3935
« on: January 27, 2016, 11:28 »
At least its still relevant (well kind of) for what its worth I think the market is more polarised and personally I've stopped uploading to a few sites...Panther Media, Cutcaster spring to mind.
3936
« on: January 27, 2016, 11:01 »
Nobody settles for good enough. Do you?
Depends on the budget. If I am looking for an image, and the client has x amount of dollars to spend on the job, I can't afford to wade through 20,000 images for hours and hours to be sure I got the best one. In that instance, yes, I settle for good enough. High budget clients who don't care what it costs and want the best, no, I don't settle for good enough.
The point is for high end clients Good Enough = the best you can reasonably find just like if you spend s on a top end camera you expect the best image quality. I would argue that for the majority of microstock we are talking about delivering value rather than top end quality.
3937
« on: January 27, 2016, 09:25 »
I think I'm going to become a photography consultant. There's probably more opportunity in charging to show people how to make money with their photos than actually taking photos.
You are absolutely correct have you seen what some people charge! I haven't got the personality for it 
3938
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:15 »
zero talent, tell me, how do you determine if you have the best image without checking all, lets say, 38,000 results for diversity in the office? are you going to check all 38,000 results?
i actually like this image on page 200 better than the image on page 1, both submitted roughly in the same period
page 200
page 1
were going off topic, apologies
Purely subjective which one is best
3939
« on: January 27, 2016, 08:08 »
"Nobody settles for good enough. Do you? When you have the choice to get a better camera for the same amount of money, you will go for it. You will not settle for an inferior product, even if it looks good enough." On the other hand if I was buying a bag of chips I would probably go in the first decent looking chip shop I saw in the High Street....the price point of most stock photos is nearer here than a new camera (sadly)
3940
« on: January 27, 2016, 07:14 »
Funnily enough they just inspected by final batch 6 from 20 accepted one very borderline rejected by most the other 5 location shots which I thought they didn't want........will take a break from their site may or may not return.
3941
« on: January 27, 2016, 07:11 »
out of 70 million images they will never know if they got the best image or not. if they search and get 200 pages of images and they wont know if the first 10 pages are newbiew photos or not. they will pick the photo they like best on those 10 pages, i doubt they will look further than 2000 images.
Yes and how can a search engine define "best" anyway its subjective and in the eye of the buyer. Its not really about best its about "good enough for what I want" most stock is for images that will be glanced at for seconds not to be hung on the wall to be admired for years to come 
3942
« on: January 27, 2016, 05:07 »
A BIT easier but until they get rid of the ridiculous controlled vocabulary I think we are snookered
3943
« on: January 26, 2016, 16:45 »
Since the Adobe takeover, my sales with Fotolia have increased every month and for the most part outperform SS now. If it wasn't for extended license sales FT would have crushed SS.
This, I think is because my photographs appeal more to the Adobe crowd and because Adobe is better at marketing overall than SS.
Are you from Europe?- I think Fotolia is more switched on to that market .....Shutterstock is so full of shiny happy people I have to put my sunglasses on when viewing their site ;-)
3944
« on: January 26, 2016, 15:38 »
Strange thing is the pics that do sneak through although often my worst do OK and its an easy upload. I have no pride .
3945
« on: January 26, 2016, 15:29 »
Is it just me?......I would try and submit my best work but of all sites I have no clue how they judge pics .......is it just me they're culling? I'm certainly not planning to look at their library with their sales potential I think I will continue to optimise my pics for Shuterstock ;-)
Hi Paul,
Its been noted that the acceptance rate for your uploaded items is currently 12%. While we constantly aim to help authors refine their skills through the review process, the fact remains too many of your account's submissions do not meet Photodune's current commercial acceptance standard.
The types of issues we have identified with your submitted items are:
Poor composition
Poor lighting and/or exposure issues.
Poor focus, too much noise reduction, etc
Subject with low commercial value. We will be particularly selective when it comes to travel photography (see link below)
For this reason, we are required to temporarily withhold your account's submission rights for a period of 14 days as a quality management measure, in good faith. Please understand this is by no means a personal judgement of your work, which does display artistic merit in its own right. During this time, we only encourage you to familiarize yourself with the current library, and its general commercial viability and quality levels as compared to your submissions overall.
3946
« on: January 26, 2016, 14:15 »
If the rejection was for lighting then resubmitting as commercial won't help. I think they are probably too light, or too flat as Zero Talent stated - bring down the blacks. Those kinds of images are best done HDR, and of course you can't submit those as editorial so commercial might give you a better chance.
Sure, thank you, I'll play with the blacks and logos before resubmiting 
It might ....I have found them more forgiving on Editorial
3947
« on: January 26, 2016, 14:10 »
I've noticed a recent rise in subs on FT from $1 upwards but haven't had an EL on there for ages. If I had a few of these they would be spanking SS as it is they are quite close.
3948
« on: January 26, 2016, 11:22 »
I think the comments about yay and Cutcaster were ironic ;-)
3949
« on: January 26, 2016, 09:32 »
Its a catch 22...... if EVERYONE boycotted it would be good for us all in the long run but If everyone joins except me I would make a fortune.......
3950
« on: January 26, 2016, 09:15 »
Fit for purpose is a binary.......this is why I believe some people end up frustrated and confuse stock with art people don't want the best ever picture of a tomato they want one which looks OK in their cook book etc. Other that I pretty much agree though SS seem to be doing strange things lately.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
