|
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 - Newsfocus1
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20
451
« on: July 22, 2009, 14:37 »
Anyone got any info on this site? They have vanished off the web and they seem to be no longer listed as a member of BAPLA (British Association of Picture Libraries & Agencies). Never had any sales from them but I'm a bit concerned about the 500 or so images I had there. Cannot find any info anywhere about them closing (if they have). Would just like to know for the sake of "closure". No need to worry about their grammar anymore it seems  Regards, David.
452
« on: June 16, 2009, 15:14 »
Hi Krusty,
I am with Photonation. They are lovely friendly people, but the stuff they mainly sell is editorial. They are used a lot by the BBC and national newspapers. It costs something like 12 (cannot really remember but it was not much,just a token amount) to have your pictures on the site. I am trying it for a year, but at the current rate of sales I won't renew it when it runs out
Hi Krusty, I second what Clivia says (apart from the not renewing my annual fee!). You guys are talking about picturenation.co.uk here I assume? Just to get the name right. Certainly most of my sales have been from editorial pictures, but that just relects my port there. Couldn't speak for any other contributors. Sales have been slow of late but I know they are very committed to building their business and commission is higher (30 for a high res sale). Certainly I have made far more on PN over the last couple of years than on other sites but then I only started with istock last year and only got in to shutterstock last week (two sales already on a handful of pictures). The great thing is that you are free to sell the same pictures through multiple sites so see which ones work for you. Good luck! Regards, David
453
« on: May 14, 2009, 18:10 »
Yeah, I was joking about the cat and dog image. It's taken on a life of its own.
Congratulations all!
Pat
Hi Pat, I was going to let this one go and not post anymore on this subject, but yes you and I were having some fun with this now famous image. Neither of us were putting Ivan down at all. Total congratulations to anyone from SV that got ported to Veer. Maybe some "new members" don't always get the joke. As for the "snr. member" posting I just cannot believe the vitriol in that. Why? We all come on this forum with differrent levels of experience and sales and I would hope all encourage and help each other. I am personally disgusted by that posting and I believe it is totally not in keeping with this forum. Regards, David
There, you got your tuppence worth getting it off your chest.. ! Isn't democracy fab?
newcomer
I have no idea where you are coming from. There is only one person here who has had a go at Ivan. Not me.Not Pat. Regards, David
454
« on: May 14, 2009, 17:43 »
Yeah, I was joking about the cat and dog image. It's taken on a life of its own.
Congratulations all!
Pat
Hi Pat, I was going to let this one go and not post anymore on this subject, but yes you and I were having some fun with this now famous image. Neither of us were putting Ivan down at all. Total congratulations to anyone from SV that got ported to Veer. Maybe some "new members" don't always get the joke. As for the "snr. member" posting I just cannot believe the vitriol in that. Why? We all come on this forum with differrent levels of experience and sales and I would hope all encourage and help each other. I am personally disgusted by that posting and I believe it is totally not in keeping with this forum. Regards, David
455
« on: May 13, 2009, 14:54 »
456
« on: May 13, 2009, 13:39 »
C' ya guys! I have to go!
Instead of congratulating Whitechild, you humiliate him for his success?
It's truly a sad day in microstock forum if some of you can be so envious as to take a stab at one of your peers.
Et tu, Brute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_tu,_Brute%3F
"some of you" ? The only posting I see that fits that criteria was the totally unpleasant one from gostwyck. I hope you are not including my comments, as I was genuinely congratulating Ivan on getting accepted at Veer. The reference to the Cat and Dog photo was humerous and this image is indeed legendary (there's a thread here somewhere, and the story has turned up on other blogs as well). Just wanted to clarify that because anyone reading this thread might presume (wrongly) that you are including me in the "some of you" . Regards, David
Let's simply say whoever they are they know .
Thanks for clarifying that  Regards, David
457
« on: May 13, 2009, 13:26 »
C' ya guys! I have to go!
Instead of congratulating Whitechild, you humiliate him for his success?
It's truly a sad day in microstock forum if some of you can be so envious as to take a stab at one of your peers.
Et tu, Brute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_tu,_Brute%3F
"some of you" ? The only posting I see that fits that criteria was the totally unpleasant one from gostwyck. I hope you are not including my comments, as I was genuinely congratulating Ivan on getting accepted at Veer. The reference to the Cat and Dog photo was humerous and this image is indeed legendary (there's a thread here somewhere, and the story has turned up on other blogs as well). Just wanted to clarify that because anyone reading this thread might presume (wrongly) that you are including me in the "some of you" . Regards, David
458
« on: May 12, 2009, 15:02 »
On iStock, buyers prefer to find what they are looking for. The search return is not a brainstorming tool. That should be the responsibility of the buyer to come up with various ideas.
Police officers also eat donuts. Should all donuts be keyworded with "police officer"?
And then maybe Swine Flu for good measure David
459
« on: May 12, 2009, 12:19 »
I have only 9 images at SV, and I never sold one.... I was hoping they will implement FTP but they didn't.....
Yep.
See, that's what really bugs me, because I painstakingly UL's many 100s of images the hard way (the SV way!). A lot of effort for nearly zero payback, and a "sorry, Charley" kick in the butt now.
I know how you feel KB. I was with them from the start and kept uploading right up to the final few days. We all have to get used to rejections in this business and move on but to get 883 rejections in one email is devastating after all the work put in. Not even a "thank you for the time and effort you spent helping build Snapvillage from nothing" note at the end. But anyway Ivan, congratulations on getting in ( did you have your legendary Cat and Dog Having Sex photo on there? That must have swung it for you!). Good luck at Veer, Regards, David
460
« on: May 11, 2009, 14:39 »
Oh well, that's a couple of years of work totally wasted then. Even talking them up on this forum when others said they were a waste of time. I was looking forward to finally seeing a return on my time when my port went into an established library (with customers!). Just to make it perfect I uploaded my last submissions just before the cut off date -all accepted! Guess which email I got? However, congratulations to those of you who got the other one, Regards, David
461
« on: May 01, 2009, 17:51 »
Sorry, I disagree. Would you like all thermometers tagged with "swine flu"? I mean, you have to take someone's temperature when you have the flu, right?
If it led to a sale yes . Let the buyer decide, surely! (they ain't stupid) Regards, David
462
« on: May 01, 2009, 17:05 »
Would you keyword a picture of a horse in a field with "Kentucky Derby"?
Never, Sean, that would be a total lie (and spam) . A picture of a pig (swine) is totally relevant to swine flu reports (editorially). It relates to pigs. Therefore any image of a pig (at present) makes it is a relevant keyword. It's times like this that I wish I was an Istock excluslive (I'd have loads of pix of the swine flu virus - isolated on white of course!). Regards, David
463
« on: May 01, 2009, 15:12 »
First ever sale on Yaymicro today (2.5 euro). Guess what, a picture of a Tamworth pig. It is just possible that editing my keywords last night and adding "swine" and "flu" may have helped a bit. Not exploitation, just following journalistic instinct for an old RM editorial hack. Regards, David
Otherwise known as "spam".
Fair comment Sean if we were talking about a non editorial site like Istock. A picture of a pig does not show "flu" and the keyword would be spam in that case. For a site like Yay which pitches towards editorial markets it was totally relevant in my opinion. Sky News has been constantly using a stock shot of a pig to illustrate its swine flu reports and I am sure many other media outlets are doing the same. I don't think anyone in the media searching for pictures to illustrate swine flu would regard a picture of a pig as irrelevant. Spam? Pig? actually Sean were you being funny and I missed it?, regards, David
464
« on: April 30, 2009, 17:10 »
First ever sale on Yaymicro today (2.5 euro). Guess what, a picture of a Tamworth pig. It is just possible that editing my keywords last night and adding "swine" and "flu" may have helped a bit. Not exploitation, just following journalistic instinct for an old RM editorial hack. Regards, David
465
« on: March 12, 2009, 15:23 »
Got me as well! Tried a number of times to check out their site this week and wondered why the links weren't working. Mental note for the future: check the dates on the postings. Can we assume that this site has come and gone then? Regards, David
466
« on: March 08, 2009, 18:20 »
Bigstock rejected my images of a dog and a cat doing sex with reason: We have enough of this subject already...sorry. More unique images will help your images stand out from the crowd.
Haha 
I could imagine any other reason...but this...
Ivan, have you not seen those hundreds of images they have of this already! My god, hope it was a small dog or a very big cat. Think you should post that picture here so we can all be amazed! Regards,David
467
« on: March 06, 2009, 15:35 »
shutterstock has editorial as well.
What do the different Micro sites pay for Editorial? I'm a bit confused. I see on one where it's listed as a minimum of $25, as print media. Another one has them for more credits. Other places I don't see anything that distinguishes them from RF license rates.
If I upload an editorial image to SS (or someplace else) will I get my usual 25-38c for a subscription, or aren't these included?
Would someone who is shooting and selling Editorial, on the Micropayment sites, please clear this up for me. I have never uploaded any Editorial to any Micro site because I was told they are sold at the same rates as everything else.
Racephoto, I have sold some editorial stuff on bigstockphoto and there you just get the normal micro rates of a dollar or so. Picturenation.co.uk sales get up to 30 commission for a high res download. Yaymicro pay more for editorial sales than their normal RF stuff (check out their site for rates) but I haven't had any there yet. Cannot comment on any other sites (not having editorial there). Hope this helps. Regards, David
468
« on: March 05, 2009, 18:39 »
Nick, have a look at picturenation.co.uk for editorial sales. They sell to the BBC and like (PN is run by an ex BBC director). I have had sales there. Yaymicro.com also does editorial. Good luck. David
469
« on: January 29, 2009, 15:13 »
Well, I have to say that the responses I got from this question made me feel less inclined to start any posts or comment much at all. I wasn't trying to talk about this person behind their back but more just to bring up the topic of people buying pictures for $1 but not willing to sell them......the same way a person complains about Wal-mart putting them out of business and then shopping there. But this isn't the first time that I have experienced negativity from people on this site.  In the future, I'll just ask questions of things that directly pertain to the direct business of microstock, if I have any that can't be answered by sifting through the thousands of other messages. Or I'll figure it out myself. Or find the answer from a friendlier forum.  [/quote] Paula, I hope you don't really mean that. Everyones views and comments are appreciated here I hope. Your original posting certainly made me smile. Perhaps ironic rather than hypocritical was the case here. I have always found this a friendly forum (apart perhaps from being accused of being a stooge of picturenation.co.uk when all I did was pass on my own experience as a contributor there!). Please keep posting on anything you like! Regards, David
470
« on: January 25, 2009, 10:39 »
Thanks for the replies guys. Sorry to confuse you RT, but no, I'm not the fat little boy in my Avatar.
You don't have to appologise it was me who had formed a judgement, FTR it wasn't your avatar I guess I thought Pixart sounded like a guys name 
By the way I don't look like a microphone and let us know what colour you choose.
And just for the record I don't look like a tabby cat (much)  regards, David
471
« on: January 25, 2009, 10:34 »
Interesting.
I've thought for some time that this could the next natural development for microstock __ allowing contributors to price their images according to their production costs or the uniqueness of the images. That would then be a true marketplace.
Which, of course, was one of the big features of snapvillage when it launched. I very naively priced all mine at $25 (just got 30c subs). Reduced to $5 months ago (still just 30c subs). Setting your own price is great in theory but the SV experience isn't encouraging. I suppose if you have brilliant and unique photos it might (but sadly mine are neither ). Regards, David
472
« on: January 23, 2009, 13:54 »
Feel free to use mine if you want. Regards. David
473
« on: January 21, 2009, 09:19 »
Well that's their grammar sorted out I was kinda hoping for some sales feedback! btw why are we reading this forum and not taking photos? Regards, David
474
« on: January 21, 2009, 07:08 »
Has anyone here had any sales on this site? I have about 450 on there and not one sale to date (started uploading to them last March). They still do not have a views or downloads counter so impossible to know what traffic/sales they are getting. Their last posting on their own blog was in September 2008. Any feedback appreciated. Regards, David
475
« on: January 20, 2009, 11:28 »
Newsfocus1,
I think they should make this more obvious, as this is an open site and any type of buyer may get to it, and many people don't have a clue about licensings. FP's Elena once said that there are people who see a photo of something and they thing they are buying the article, not the image (a flower bouquet, for example), so go figure.
Regards,
Adelaide
Fair comment Madelaide. They are usually quite open to ideas so maybe this will be done. Regards, David
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
