|
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 - Artemis
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
401
« on: March 29, 2010, 16:45 »
There should be another list for Dead Sites Walking.
Tough business......
Like Image Vortex
...and Vivozoom
402
« on: March 20, 2010, 15:58 »
I got accepted the 3rd time as well and truly had the feeling they made me jump through hoops to make it there.
Don't give up, as soon as you're in they're a whole lot more lenient imho.
403
« on: March 20, 2010, 12:39 »
*snip*
Most people upload to ThinkStock because they want to make more money. (One would think an exclusive Black Diamond is past such worries. But no.) The further down Getty's road they go chasing, the less we're all going to get.
Let's keep those upload limits in place for as long as possible.
Just wondering if we're absolutely sure those black diamonds all opted in... i still read posts in the istock forums from people being outraged because they opted out and their images are STILL there? Apart from this... i agree with istock being sacrificed for the "Greater Getty Good" as someone stated earlier; it becomes painfully obvious with every new move. And btw, isn't this very typical?! The bomb gets dropped right before the weekend again...
404
« on: March 18, 2010, 16:56 »
Heading for BME on istock, dramatic on Shutterstock (but, due to renovations i haven't uploaded since november, really starting to pay the price there), normal (means low) on Dreamstime and still happy i ditched Fotolia and it's shenanigans.
405
« on: March 12, 2010, 16:48 »
... For all the contributors in the imaging industry, we need this site to FAIL MISERABLY. It is GETTY trying to get away with their ridiculous 20% payouts. The more you make on this site, the more you eventually lose because you made it the status quo. We need to stop this "Yes sir, may i have another" mentality.
Ditto!
Wish every stock photographer could understand it. 
Double yep!!! Of course everyone is free to submit wherever they want but i cringe everytime i see someone opted in/submitting there... we're digging our own grave with submitting to this one.
406
« on: February 22, 2010, 18:48 »
wohoo, 6 x 3,50 here too! 
407
« on: February 17, 2010, 16:38 »
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...
+1
Agree very much so! (well, apart from the tax thing which they blew up nicely at first). Another nice detail about them is they absorb refund costs, and the recent EL action where they payed EL's to the contributors after they found a license infringement. They also don't get rich on "sleeping" accounts which makes them come across as less greedy than some of the other big players out there. It's a relief getting treated correct, nothing more nothing less, some of the other biggies ought to take an exemple. Just another reason for me not to go for Getty's TS crumbles, SS is doing it in a far more "fair-trade" manner.
408
« on: February 12, 2010, 14:47 »
yes, i have been thinking about that too donding. I won't put anything there that isn't the truth, just some info on how FT treats it's contributors Also planning to double check with a friend who is a lawyer; might be complex material though since probably every country has it's own rules... either way, with some dry facts that are nothing but the plain truth i suspect little can happen.
409
« on: February 12, 2010, 12:49 »
They also got lucky the whole Thinkstock disaster is distracting peeps away from this i think; makes it die even faster. My portfolio is deleted now too, also because i'm not supporting their trickeries and am fed up with their attitude. Website is a few days away from being finished and on my 'stockpage' i'll be posting a notice to buyers about how FT treats it's contributors. I know the impact will be little to zero, but if it puts even one buyer away from there i'll still feel like i've won 
410
« on: February 09, 2010, 18:11 »
"Getty is not the enemy" they state in the forums.
I have little doubts Getty is doing good things for istock and helps it grow but unfortunately it mostly happens behind the screens. What i get to see from Getty is this: first announce how great they are doing, throwing big numbers around about how much they grow and how much profit they make. Then next in all seriousness declare the current canister system is 'unsustainable' and double them! ==>lowering royalties
Next offer us a bad deal with TS, which is a new low for contributors (==> lowering royalties again); i'm not a sparrow happy with every little crumb thrown at me. No thank you indeed. Getty might not be the enemy, but they surely come across as greedy because the only things we see from them is them trying to get more for themselves and less for us ;(
411
« on: February 07, 2010, 15:34 »
I live in Europe and was directed to the US site when signing up. Thus paid in dollars.
(and ditching FT as soon as payout hits paypal)
412
« on: February 06, 2010, 06:49 »
Totally agree; let's not dig our own graves and tell the industry it's ok to lower sub commissions to $0,25 by opting in for Thinkstock. I'm firmly opted out and hope others will be as well...
413
« on: February 03, 2010, 15:42 »
Donding - if you haven't reached payout, couldn't you just buy images of your fellow contributors? FT will profit from that also, but at least you'd help someone else or a few people to reach payout. Maybe people who are going to leave there could help eachother in that way.
That's proubably what I'll end up doing. I started deleting the old mud covered files first, then someone pointed out that we needed to wait to see what was going to happen then everyone do the same thing after we find out the result. I have a total of 28.856 on there. I don't quite understand if I did make payout how the .856 would be paid. I guess they would have to cut a penny in half for my credit.
I'm in the same process donding. Decided to pull my port; waiting for the payout to hit paypal to delete them all. Now i'm just deleting the older stuff and of course not uploading. I'm pretty keen on getting my stuff out there asap (this one final drop too much really angered me), but if the intentions of a group action after some things are more clear is serious i'll happily wait until then as well.
414
« on: February 02, 2010, 18:03 »
Seconding this, strongly! 
415
« on: February 01, 2010, 14:59 »
Thanks stardust! I'm aware of this and still giving it some thinking. Right now in anger i'd love to close my entire account (and let them keep their sorry *ss quarter of a download subscription count)... but you never know what the future brings, so i'll probably end up deleting them one by one. I do want ALL my pics taken off their partner sites as well though and wonder if this will happen automatically if i delete my pics on FT...
416
« on: February 01, 2010, 14:41 »
Do wait for the money to come through, artemis, nothing is safe with them.
Thankies, will do
417
« on: February 01, 2010, 14:06 »
I just requested payout and am ready to pull my port.
I was already sick of all their sneaky tricks and about my pics being sold on all sorts of sketchy partners i know nothing about. This one is just the drop.
A question though: i've never closed my account before.... my payout request on FT is now pending and my credits are at $0,78. (they can keep that). Should i wait until the money hits paypal before closing my account or is it safe to do it right now?
Thanks!
418
« on: January 27, 2010, 11:54 »
Same here sharpshot, over 75% comes from the US.
Thanks for the update Brian!
I think Veer is a promising site and am curious what 2010 will bring, will keep expanding my portfolio there!
One question/request; so far i don't think it's possible to see which file has sold on which date (or maybe i just havent found out how to). I like the graphs, but would love to see which file sold when for how much.
Right above the graphs is a link "Display As Table"
Click it.
Oops, thanks so much sc! Being dense again i assumed it would make a graph with bars instead of lines...should assume less and click more!
419
« on: January 27, 2010, 10:57 »
Same here sharpshot, over 75% comes from the US.
Thanks for the update Brian!
I think Veer is a promising site and am curious what 2010 will bring, will keep expanding my portfolio there!
One question/request; so far i don't think it's possible to see which file has sold on which date (or maybe i just havent found out how to). I like the graphs, but would love to see which file sold when for how much.
420
« on: January 25, 2010, 13:27 »
I also agree this is (way) below standard (and also hope the contributor in question will never find this thread because i would feel sorry for him/her), but i don't think its only for vectors.
Have you ever browsed 'newest first' on shutterstock? I keep getting baffled at the sub-par stuff that still gets accepted there daily as well....
421
« on: January 24, 2010, 18:57 »
True, but i like variation once in a while
422
« on: January 24, 2010, 17:29 »
Thanks MichaelJay! I did not blur the background though...(if i do i also always work on separate layers with layer masks).
The only thing i did to this shot (it was shot on white) was adding a low opacity lightblue gradient overlay ...and removing the blue parts on the shoes and skirt, so that's probably where it went wrong... and maybe also why istock likes to reject for overfiltering. I like photoshopping, they not so much :/
(then again i also get overfilterings for very little to no photoshop)
423
« on: January 23, 2010, 15:13 »
Roadrunner: i understand completely...iStock is definitely a VERY nitpicky, time and energyconsuming site (to some of us at least) Then again if you keep submitting to SS and DT your skills and photographic eye will grow along, without putting a lot of effort in.
stockastic: i'm pulling hairs along with ya! communication with the reviewers sometimes works, but takes even more time. A recent example:
Rejected for overfiltering -> resubmit with note: "please can you elaborate? no filters or colorboosting has been performed" -> reject with note: there are some artefacts in the sausage -> resubmit with note: sausages have been toned down, artefacts should be gone -> reject with note: overfiltering; the isolation has strayed areas -> resubmit with note: cleaned up isolation -> accepted!
It does work and most reviewers really are willing to provide some extra info which i truly appreciate (although i can imagine them sighing behind their computers thinking 'geez pitbull, let it go already!'), but it's so time-consuming i only bother with pictures i really really can't let go ...
it's an option to get more clarity though!
424
« on: January 23, 2010, 13:12 »
If you colleagues have tips on whats wrong and how to avoid the overfilterings in the future you have my eternal grattitude 
Smudge?
Whoea, sharp eye! Cut out like that it definitely looks like smudge indeed...but then again, when i look at the picture and the shoe behind it, it looks like DoF falling away (haha bending my head in all possible directions here trying to catch if its smudge or DoF)... not saying you're wrong though, it does look odd... if it is smudge i wonder how it got there, i didnt do anything on the shoes apart from lighting up the shadow under the heel... Thanks mister FD! 1 down and with tweaking ready to resubmit; another 99 or something to go Roadrunner, i was just wondering how many pictures you have on istock? I'm asking because i also started a little longer than a year ago and didn't sell a thing on iStock for the first 6-8 months, until i hit the magic 100 pics online. From that moment sales keep rolling in steadily and iStock now each month makes up for 60-70% of my MS income, with a portfolio much smaller than most other sites... I totally understand your frustrations with them though, i've cursed so much at them and still do once in a while...it's just their money tastes so sweet (at least as long as i dont think about the 20% thing) ETA: you're definitely right FD-amateur; checked the RAW and it's not there. Maybe it happened with cloning some dust out. Now at once we have the reason for the frequent overfilterings i get : "not enough eye for detail"...
425
« on: January 23, 2010, 12:22 »
Thanks for your reply and heads up Denis! Since i switched from a Nikon D100 to the D700 a couple of months ago my technical rejections on istock are history as well. It's just the darned 'overfiltering' i keep getting so often. It must be something i'm missing because i never hear other peeps complaining about it.... the biggest issue with it is that it's such an unclear reason (i very rarely to never use filters, try not to overdo saturation and don't use noise reduction ) making it pretty difficult to guess what needs fixing... I hosted a pretty typical (for me) overfiltering rejection here: http://users.telenet.be/missLounge/exemple.jpgIf you colleagues have tips on whats wrong and how to avoid the overfilterings in the future you have my eternal grattitude (sorry for hijacking OP...)
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
