|
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
4201
« on: August 01, 2015, 02:29 »
Just had a HORRIBLE month but they have a habit of bouncing back a bit - I do like them because they are a bit different and sell pictures I like rather than some of my more uninspired stock stuff. But never been "top 4" for me.
4202
« on: July 31, 2015, 14:47 »
Its not 12:39 everywhere in the world
4203
« on: July 29, 2015, 13:14 »
I know Dreamstime provide such a service no idea if its any good. I would regard it as too risky to outsource such a significant and subjective part of the job. As well as eating into my miniscule "profit"
4204
« on: July 29, 2015, 06:05 »
Stumbling across random crap is the story of my life! Actually I've had some good sellers like that 
I definitely have some snaps that gave me very good returns, but a planned shoot has better chances of getting winners.
Yep I agree though I've often taken unplanned pics on a planned shoot with success - flexibility is a useful skill I think.
4205
« on: July 28, 2015, 15:37 »
Stumbling across random crap is the story of my life! Actually I've had some good sellers like that
4206
« on: July 28, 2015, 15:27 »
Thanks for clarifying only 28c for us none exclusives  .
4207
« on: July 28, 2015, 15:11 »
For exclusives I presume?
4208
« on: July 28, 2015, 13:35 »
Today is a Monday like Sunday on SS.
So the real question is: are people seing an upturn in Fotolia sales?
The real question should be: Why does one sell their valued work for a royalty of 0.25 - 0.40? Ooops sorry that 0.40c was for the new Adobe site, I keep forgetting that Shutterstock only pays you 0.38c. My Bad.
Surely one's work is certainly worth more than this. I certainly can't afford to sell my work for this price.
I suppose it depends on how often you sell the same piece of work...
True enough. But I can't afford to sell my work for so little. Selling a photo 10 times to make maximum $4.00 is totally wrong.
Are you on istock? If so, how do you manage to keep your work out of the subs program there?
I don't. I was forced into it. If I could opt out I would. But to really opt out I'd have to pull my work, and that would be foolish to give up a source of income that is very good to me. Consider it a strangle hold that you'd be foolish to tap out on. It sucks, but that is the way it is.
For many people on msg, until recently SS was their main income; so if your port suited SS, it made sense to sell there.
Fair enough, but I could never afford to sell my work for 0.25c on up to 0.38c
But you do just that on Istock don't you or have I misunderstood?
4209
« on: July 27, 2015, 02:13 »
SS say they are a technology business - if they were using software for reviews wouldn't they be boasting about it? Shareholders would love the prospect of reduced costs?
4210
« on: July 24, 2015, 13:45 »
They could optimise their software for Fotolia uploads e.g if they still insist on categories putting something to help in Lightroom.
4211
« on: July 24, 2015, 11:17 »
I would say you need to think more about why people want to buy images.
4212
« on: July 24, 2015, 09:48 »
So everyone withdraws the money.....and bankrupts the company 
4213
« on: July 24, 2015, 09:17 »
A big one I would imagine. SS have some serious competition at last
not sure i get it what you say pauws. how is scott going to give ss competition when fotolia is paying you even far less than ss? the end game is still less money for everyone.
you move your work to fotoilia, you have to sell twice as much to earn the same leaving it in ss.
as bad as it is already, there is no evidence adobe is going to make a difference
anymore than going to getty or like some say to alamy , just because you get paid more
IF YOU SELL at getty or alamy.
IF... is a big word to bring out the popcorn.
My point is its competition for SS ... generally speaking a monopoly is a bad thing for suppliers and customers and things were heading that way - the evidence so far although I accept its early days is that adobe are upping payment rates and they haven't exactly got a reputation for selling photoshop and other products off cheap! Like most people I suspect I already have my work at both sites.
4214
« on: July 23, 2015, 16:24 »
I doubt it rejections would be much more consistent if this were the case. Its much simpler they don't have a category for "we don't really like your photo and don't think it will sell"
4215
« on: July 23, 2015, 14:40 »
A big one I would imagine. SS have some serious competition at last
4216
« on: July 23, 2015, 09:08 »
Bigstock auto generated categories, not sure why they changed it
Cos it was pants. I don't understand at all in this day and age with sophisticated searching algorithms we need categories at all.
4217
« on: July 14, 2015, 05:04 »
Wonder if Fotolia/Adobe is beginning to hurt - next set of results may prove interesting
4218
« on: July 13, 2015, 11:39 »
Yep me too
4219
« on: July 02, 2015, 11:29 »
Given the sales on Veer i'm not sure if they have any clue what their customers want or is that customer 
4220
« on: July 02, 2015, 11:11 »
To be honest never noticed it had gone - I did use it but never bothered to try and work out if it did any good.
4221
« on: July 02, 2015, 05:39 »
Just had a few accepted!!! The more stocky and cliched (and dull/boring) the more likely to be accepted nothing to do with technical quality methinks
4222
« on: July 02, 2015, 03:35 »
I never really thought the rank thing was credible my ranking seems to go up and down randomly compared with good or bad weeks?
4223
« on: July 02, 2015, 01:41 »
Solid month for me helped by large SOD from SS. Fotolia doing very well and Istock pretty good too. The minnows were all poor to non-existent sales - signs of polarisation but also cos I haven't got round to uploading on the ones where its a slog - concentrating on higher value sites.
4224
« on: June 27, 2015, 10:06 »
Its a genuine question what kind of stuff do you do that needs it I'm interested.
4225
« on: June 27, 2015, 08:22 »
I'd like to add to the above by saying continuous light is much hotter. In a short while the studio will get uncomfortable.
A con of flash is sync. You can only shoot max 1/200 or 1/250 of a second.
Why do yo see this as a con I've never seen a need to shoot faster in a studio environment?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
