|
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 - Bateleur
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 35
451
« on: October 15, 2007, 11:48 »
Tried to look, but the server's down.
I'll try again later
452
« on: October 15, 2007, 04:15 »
Alamy has a VERY lax quality control system and their business seems to be working.
Yes, but Alamy has some sort of sophisticated (?) ranking system which looks at the number of times an image has appeared in a customer's search, the number of times it has been clicked on by the customer, and the number of times it has been bought. No one quite knows how it works (there's been a lot of speculation, and parts of the algorithm are patented I believe) but the result is that if you have a lot of rubbish images in your collection you sink down to the bottom in any search. And with some searches throwing up 100+ pages there's not much chance of a customer seeing the rubbish.
453
« on: October 15, 2007, 01:58 »
They are only doing what all the other agencies did when they started up - collecting as many images as possible to get the library going. Once they've got a few hundred thousand in the library they'll start to tighten up.
But what's the point of uploading all that rubbish? No one in their right mind is going to buy it and, from the agency's point of view, it just degrades their collection. I would have thought if buyers have to wade through a load of junk to find a decent image they're going to move elsewhere.
454
« on: October 10, 2007, 10:14 »
Wow! That's encouraging.
455
« on: October 10, 2007, 03:04 »
What can you expect? Ebb and flow ... ... as so many people so often say. Some days you'll sell a ton of images (if you have a ton of images online). Other days you'll sell hardly any. There's no rhyme nor reason to it except that weekends are always slow times, however many images you have. Just hang in there and your sales will pick up. And don't take rejections personally. They don't mean a thing. Welcome to the wonderful world of microstock 
456
« on: October 10, 2007, 02:59 »
Ten out of ten for effort.
But is anyone here a member? Any personal experiences to relate? And ... more important ... any sales? 70% of 0 is 0
That thread, with its sneaky 'encouragement' did not exactly encourage me to submit, coupled with the fact that they have a tiny image base. I did a search on 'business' and it threw up 12 images, most of which weren't terribly relevant. For me, at the moment, it doesn't seem worth the effort.
It's tough setting up in this business now. Good luck!
457
« on: October 09, 2007, 15:45 »
Seems ridiculous.
If you have a one cent coin in your pocket it belongs to you ... no?
It is your property.
Therefore you can freely take and sell a photograph of it.
458
« on: October 09, 2007, 10:09 »
The RB people doesn't really seem to share our concerns regarding watermarking.
I doubt there will be any change their unless a lot of users requests it.
I started a thread in their forum
http://www.redbubble.com/forums/9/topics/3491-why-not-a-proper-watermark?page=1#posts-40366
But there seems to be a negativity against proper watermarking there.
They say people steal images anyway.....
I've read the forum and, actually, it seems like most of the negativity is coming from the moderator who, presumably, is a staff member. "They say people steal images anyway ..." Yeah, and people break into houses. But that doesn't mean we don't lock our doors at night. I'm avoiding this site for the moment. Why? Because it seems to me they're not bothered about their contributors ... a) They have quite a number of images on show that have copyright issues, but they don't seem to have any policy on this. My guess is they'll pass the buck to the photog if there's any trouble, claiming simply to be a distributor. b) In the watermark discussion the moderator says, ... our feedback (and our personal feelings) tell us that a large watermark detracts from the artwork, dampening the buying/viewing experience. This sounds to me like they're principally interested in shifting as many images as possible. Again they don't seem to care about the individual owners of those images. Great idea. Pity about the details.
459
« on: October 09, 2007, 03:13 »
Is the lack of a watermark likely to be a problem? As an experiment I 'lifted' an image off it's viewing page and saved it to my disk. I got a 27kb JPEG image file and a thief can't do much with that.
Did you click on "View Larger"? It is an 800x533 image. I think that could be useful to some people.
Ah ... no ... I didn't. And, yes, I guess that could be useful for things like web sites. I think I'll hold off with Red Bubble until they've got a better watermarking system.
460
« on: October 09, 2007, 02:02 »
I just had 40 accepted by QC, but to my horror I see they don't import IPTC metadata. R u supposed to copy/paste all that info by hand?
In my experience they do import the metadata. Sometimes it goes into the wrong field, but it should be there. They've also implemented a new system with 'essential', 'main' and 'comprehensive' keywords, so there's still a fair bit of work to do. And i thought iStock's disambiguation was a pain 
461
« on: October 09, 2007, 01:53 »
Just a thought, there seems to be a very relaxed attitude towards copyrighted products which images are offered for sale? Lots of company labels.
What's up with that, any comments.
Aussies are incredibly laid back  But I would guess the buck's gonna stop with the photog in this case. RedBubble will probably say "We're only the intermediaries". Take care.
462
« on: October 09, 2007, 01:48 »
I don't like that they display large photos without a proper watermark, so I am not uploading my best selling microsock images to them.
They don't have ANY watermark, do they? Or is it optional? Because I don't see any.
Regards,
Adelaide
Is the lack of a watermark likely to be a problem? As an experiment I 'lifted' an image off it's viewing page and saved it to my disk. I got a 27kb JPEG image file and a thief can't do much with that.
463
« on: October 08, 2007, 08:10 »
I use photobucket to host the photos.
Thanks, that worked, but what a horribly ugly website 
The name ain't much prettier either
464
« on: October 08, 2007, 07:35 »
Mine is currently at 68.8. If you search for animal with best match it is the second image. Thats why the number is so high I guess. I do not know why I made it up there ...
Great image! And I've got a pretty good idea why you made it up there. It's an enormously topical image ... global warming ... the plight of the polar bear ... and it's well-executed too. But how did you get the polar bear to jump in when you'd finished, and a penguin climb out on to the same ice floe? And which part of our world were you in, anyway?
465
« on: October 08, 2007, 05:29 »
91.7 , it's sold 450 times since the beginning of June and accounted for one in seven of my sales last month.
Wow! That's amazing. Congratulations.
466
« on: October 08, 2007, 05:28 »
Yes ... I started with them about the same time and it was about 6 million.
Mind you ... some of the images are complete junk. They really need to do a massive sort out in my opinion. Numbers don't mean quality.
467
« on: October 08, 2007, 04:27 »
Just out of interest ... what is your highest 'Download per Month' for an image on iStock at the moment?
My best image is currently running at 21.5
468
« on: October 06, 2007, 13:40 »
A Bateleur is a sort of tail-less African eagle, magnificent flyers. They travel hundreds of kilometres every day with barely a wing-beat, riding effortlessly on the African thermals.
I did a study on them whilst living in Africa and they are my all-time favourite bird.
I miss them in the skies, now I live in Europe.
What about yours, A.K.A.-Tom?
469
« on: October 06, 2007, 02:49 »
At first glance it seems a bit cheap.
But is it any different from going into a caf for a drink and seeing ads about the place for all sorts of other stuff?
The one big difference is that the caf owner has control over the ads that appear (and is unlikely to have a poster for genital crab control over the coffee machine).
I'd send your screenshot to DT with a polite complaint about this particular content being associated (heaven knows why) with your image.
470
« on: October 06, 2007, 02:35 »
I've sold 2. Still can't figure out why someone would buy a print of a poorly lit paper bag.
Don't try to figure it out. Just bank the money. There's no accounting for what people want in this game. That's one of the beauties of it. Sometimes I think of myself as a sort of 'hunter/gatherer' seeking out images here and there like those people of old used to go through the forest looking for stuff for the pot.
471
« on: October 05, 2007, 11:06 »
Terrific keywords! 10/10 for creativity.
But what's the picture of?
472
« on: October 05, 2007, 03:36 »
Just a statistical question ... won't the number of prints you've sold be affected by the number of images you have online? I have 678 images with IS and have sold 2 prints. Here's one of them: 
474
« on: October 04, 2007, 09:44 »
475
« on: October 04, 2007, 02:34 »
There's also Sodapix ( http://www.sodapix.com/) based in Switzerland, with the site in German and English. I haven't sold anything with them yet, but they carry some interesting and unusual stuff.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 35
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
