|
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 - gostwyck
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 210
476
« on: October 01, 2013, 15:17 »
I feel kicked in the stomach when I get a Main sale for <$1 or even <50c, when it's a unique low-supply, low demand file so wouldn't sell any more often at $1 than it would at $50; and I know that's much more than indies get.
So upload your 'unique low-supply, low demand' stuff as RM on more appropriate places like Alamy, etc.
477
« on: October 01, 2013, 11:41 »
I was 6% down on Sept 2012 but that was entirely due to IS (45% down) and FT (24% down).
SS, DT and BigStock were all up but not quite enough to make up the losses at IS & FT.
478
« on: October 01, 2013, 11:26 »
Haven't read all the post's but think about it a minute?
He is a businessman and anyone in his position understanding thet the Govt was bound and determined to shutdown which would then cause stocks to tank the next morning would sell what they had and make a killing from it then when the stocks are still down in price buy back more and start the game all over.
Sell high buy low.
... except that SSTK are up another 2% today.
479
« on: October 01, 2013, 04:02 »
I'd recommend Photobox too. I've been using them for 10 years now.
480
« on: September 30, 2013, 18:01 »
Every day. I always hope that my image of a mundane, but hopefully useful, subject will out-sell the thousands of others submitted by other 'contestants'.
481
« on: September 27, 2013, 08:05 »
I uploaded 38 from May 19 to June 13. So far, they haven't made it to the PP. They've pulled in 30 views and four sales (total earnings: $2.20) since then. It seems to be a complete and utter waste of time uploading there now.
I uploaded about 100 around the same time. As you say half of them haven't made it to the PP and sales over the 3 months wouldn't even have covered minimum wage for the time I spent uploading to their ridiculous system. Never again until a significant royalty increase and an end to the RC system. Oh, and due to the price reduction it looks like this year I won't make the RC level to maintain my paltry 18% rate ... so now even less incentive to upload.
482
« on: September 26, 2013, 18:42 »
I would like to ask for feedback from Stocksy contributors too. I'm selling my images on microstock sites but few months ago Stocksy caught my attention, I love their style and images and I would like to become a contributor. I sent them my portfolio already but they aren't interested in my stock images currently so I would like to show them different images next time. I prepared new portfolio, these images are more what I like personally, they aren't from microstock site. I would love to ask photographers which sent their portfolio to Stocksy in last weeks and were accepted if my images are suitable for them or not. If not, what shall I change? I will be very thankful for your recommendation and feedback.
My new portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/102259734@N04/
Looking good  (imo)
I think Sean is right (imo)
Apply again and you're in! You've just had the seal of approval from the in-crowd. A nod's a good as a wink to a blind man as they say.
483
« on: September 26, 2013, 18:36 »
Hi Jo Ann,
Thanks for the response.
A few years ago, we had a discussion internally at Shutterstock as to whether we should comment on support-related topics in third-party forums. The discussion was a practical one: we support many different communication channels across multiple brands and different languages and it can be tough to provide full coverage to all of those places at once.
That said, we believe in participating actively in the forums. Many people on our team (myself included) are life-long photographers, photo editors, art buyers, etc, and part of the creative community, and as you pointed out, we want to be where conversations are happening.
At times, forum posters will take a lack of a prompt reply to mean a particular thing, as was the case in this thread. More often than not, the answer is a simple one and a response is forthcoming or were simply dividing our time between response channels. Its important to note that we try to comment on facts and not speculation or inaccurate info.
My post was simply to suggest that contacting us directly is always the best option.
As far as licensing goes, Shutterstock has a long history of delivering earnings as well as expanding the royalty opportunities available through new products. Weve been transparent with respect to the kinds of rights that were granting and --- as is the case with sensitive use creating opt-in and opt-out scenarios for contributors as much as possible when we feel those rights will be a concern for you. We also believe in non-exclusivity. All of these policies are intended to put you in control and underscore a strong philosophy of supporting contributors.
The premier license is an individually negotiated product fundamentally based on our standard and enhanced RF licenses. It includes additional features such as the option for sensitive use, pre-negotiated pricing, indemnification (provided by Shutterstock), multiuser accounts, and workflow and billing features. If you remain concerned, opting out of sensitive use will effectively opt you out of the premier license. That also opts you out of the highest paid sales to volume buyers such as large ad agencies and major publishers. Of course, we recommend that you take advantage of these opportunities because they can drive significant royalties for you.
Thanks for the discussion; we do take all feedback into consideration and we will endeavor to better explain our products and policies.
Best,
Scott
VP of Content
Cracking responses Scott. You are rapidly becoming a legend of the microstock world with your fulsome and honest replies. Cheers!
484
« on: September 26, 2013, 10:36 »
My point was more that an average of $80 per month doesn't seem like top tier. It's just the top 4 sites in the 'top tier', they aren't necessarily top tier sites. One of the top four and top tier seem to me to be different things.
What an utterly ridiculous and contradictory statement! As usual Tickstock is trying to talk authoritively about a subject that he/she has absolutely no knowledge or experience of. What a waste of forum space. DT are most definitely a 'top tier' site as far as I'm concerned. Solid and reliable earnings and only marginally behind IS and FT for me this month. Not only that but the RPD at DT (at $2.13 averaged over the last 13 months for me) is more than double that of the other 'top tier' sites. Also, with regard to 'contributor relations', DT are second only to SS and absolutely miles ahead of IS and FT. I very much like DT and also the people who run it.
485
« on: September 26, 2013, 09:38 »
As it says on the images ... "Only from iStock".
486
« on: September 25, 2013, 20:34 »
I was looking for a photo yesterday and the pages took so long to load - as in 3 plus minutes per page load if at all - that I gave up completely. Not that I really care that much I was just looking up something for a friend but I kept thinking how many customers must have simply given up - the site at this moment is essentailly not useable - at least from Asia.
Hmm __ I'd agree. It's as if they are still on dial-up internet in Calgary. You literally have the time to go away and make a cup of tea before the results of your search request actually appear. God help you if you then want to modify your search! The disfunctionality of the Istock's site is simply bewildering. It's as if they are trying to avoid selling image licenses. Weird.
487
« on: September 25, 2013, 19:53 »
Istock site slow? Breaking news shocker!
I get the impression it is still steam driven.
488
« on: September 25, 2013, 19:48 »
Didn't Maynard Keynes once say, " Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
Nice one!
489
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:46 »
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with.
This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
What information are they trying to keep secret? They say that they pay 20-30% and give royalties up to $120, it's pretty easy to tell how much they charge since it's written in the royalty schedule. They don't say how low the sales go though, is that the secret they're trying to keep?
And why specifically say you can't talk about your royalty rate when they say that it's between 20 and 30% right there on the website? Something doesn't really add up.
Don't talk nonsense. SS are in a different league, compared to your bizarrely beloved Istock, when it comes to contributor respect and relations. As an Istock exclusive muppet, having had your TOS changed multiple times in their favour, you don't even know what that means.
490
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:26 »
I'm not sure in how many other ways that sort of image could be used.
Yeah, sorry. You're just asking for it to be used improperly. And she wasn't very smart to sign.
I don't even understand how that image could be used 'improperly'. If I wanted to create an image of someone providing 'escort services' then I'd think I'd have absolutely nailed it with that one! Outstanding work if that was your intention. She's overly made-up, pouting into the camera with her butt raised whilst wearing see-through undies, What is she supposed to be selling? Toffee-apples? "No further questions m'lud"
491
« on: September 24, 2013, 19:18 »
This attempt to restrict what contributors can say about their personal earnings in public strike me as unclear, unjustified, unnecessary and unenforceable.
Obviously this backed up by a thinly veiled threat to close the account of any "violator" who can be identified.
Seems like someone at SS just decided their image was a bit too friendly and easygoing, and it was time to start acting like a big company.
Sorry mate, and as much as I usually respect your opinions, I think in this case we're all reading way too much into this. SS just don't want detailed information about sales being leaked to the competition. And nor should we. The last thing we want is places like FT, for example, undercutting those SOD licenses that SS keeps coming up with. This supposed 'restriction' is necessary to protect our incomes as well as SS's.
492
« on: September 24, 2013, 14:53 »
Why bother with FTP for small batches of images? I just use the drag & drop page and find it very quick indeed.
493
« on: September 24, 2013, 11:32 »
The account that stole the images was created in 2013, it could only be a few days old. Do you expect Stocksy or any other agency to find users on Shutterstock selling stolen work any faster (faster than some undetermined amount of time that those files were up)?
The earliest image was uploaded around 20th May 2013 and the latest around 20th July.
494
« on: September 24, 2013, 10:40 »
495
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:23 »
Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites.
Honestly, if I put the images I have on Stocksy on the other four sites I'm selling on, I doubt they would make more than a few dollars a month. There's an audience that wants what Stocksy is selling, and they're willing to pay a reasonable fee.
The 'Big 4' that you are not on account for 96% of my stock earnings. I haven't even bothered with the 'other four sites' that you sell on due to the low volume that most report. What you describe is not a realistic comparison. The stuff you have on Stocksy would certainly sell extremely well on SS, IS, DT and FT. Why wouldn't they? They are excellent stock images. I can't actually tell the difference between the stuff you sell on Stocksy and the stuff you used to sell on Istock (other than the lack of certain genres like illustrations, etc). Your latest work is certainly some of your best ... but then hopefully that applies to most of us as we slowly improve our knowledge and skills. I certainly don't see how Sedge's point #1, saying how on Stocksy colours are not overly saturated and generally subdued, applies to your port? Unless there's something wrong with my monitor your port on Stocksy is full of super-bright and saturated images. They are outstanding stock images but I don't see how any of Sedge's points define your work on Stocksy from your other work. I get the distinct impression that 'curating' on Stocksy must be done with the flick on a coin. Unlike Sedge I can see no pattern or logic to it at all. The only thing that surprise me about your Stocksy portfolio are the simple backgrounds of seeds, leaves and the like. I got the impression that in your Istock days you'd have dismissed such basic subjects as the territory of newbies. Is that because on Stocksy they are more worthwhile because the volume of similar images is so much less?
496
« on: September 23, 2013, 17:50 »
tardy. very tardy. slipshod even.
Why? The terms of the agreement are that payments will be made in the following month. They've still got a week to complete it.
I'm no fan of iStock's treatment of us but I don't understand why they get criticised for adhering to the payment terms.
Because actually they don't? If I remember correctly the June PP payments came through sometime in mid to late August. Basically Istock are becoming ever more inconsistent and unreliable as each month passes. That also gives me concern about the accuracy of the reporting.
497
« on: September 23, 2013, 13:16 »
Images and portfolio gone. Another one bites the dust ...
498
« on: September 22, 2013, 20:09 »
I thought it might be productive to think about what you don't see on Stocksy:
1) Over-saturation of colors: Actually, quite the opposite. A lot of the imagery has a somewhat subdued color palette, very subtle in nature; the color doesn't shout at you. Color is bright and vivid only where appropriate, such as party balloons, vividly painted objects, etc.
2) Very little post-processing: I'd be willing to bet that most of Stocksy's images have been finished in Lightroom without the need for further editing in Photoshop.
3) Very little (if any) composite work or special effects: For example, there are some nice star-trail images, but seemingly all done in-camera. No fake water (Flood Filter) or related CG imagery.
4) Not a lot of conceptual work: A keyword search for "conceptual" yields 21 results, although perhaps that's being too vague. Here are some other related searches: "fantasy" 130 results, "surreal" 100 results (a lot of which the keyword doesn't even apply), "magical" 142, "mystery" 227 results, "strength" 233 results, "power" 308 results. I have no doubt this category will grow as the collection matures.
5) Backgrounds are mostly object oriented and created in-camera: No scans of old paper, or scans of paper made to look like old paper, no added grain, noise and/or textures, etc. There's some really nice and cleverly produced images in this collection.
6) There's very little HDR imagery.
7) No illustrations (yet).
I'm sure others will add their opinions regarding the validity of this list. What I do see on Stocksy, is primarily three styles:
1) Classically straight photography, aimed at producing a more natural and elegant look by avoiding heavy post-processing and filtration. Lighting is often soft and subtle.
2) Although the MSG folks on Stocksy may protest, there is a significant proportion of images that have, for lack of a better term, an "Instagram look." There are a lot of images that exhibit faded colors, split-toning, and/or subtle cross-processing. This isn't a criticism. This look is very hot at the moment; there are numerous TV programs here in the US that employ this technique, not to mention countless ads in both print and television. The best-selling photographers at Etsy use variations of this aesthetic to some degree (http://www.craftcount.com/category.php?cat=3&subcat=29).
3) There are many images, especially a significant portion of the landscapes, that have what I would call a "snapshot" quality. It'll be interesting to see how this approach sells. Personally, I feel this is the one weakness of the collection (just my opinion and probably worthless, so don't confuse this criticism with hate, please).
I'm really rooting for Stocksy. Any agency that can offer an alternative to Getty and the Micros while also offering fair-trade business practices, deserves all the support it can get.
Nah. It's too far up it's own arse for my liking. Sorry but stock ... is stock ... is stock ... and good-old-fashioned basic 'stock' will always win out. Personally I believe that almost any image good enough to be accepted on Stocksy, on an exclusive basis, would almost certainly earn far more as a non-exclusive image on multiple microstock sites. That's why I am not persuaded to join. I like the general concept but I don't think it is strong enough to work commercially in the photographers' interests. Sorry but 50% of X is still a lot less than say 30% of 10X.
499
« on: September 21, 2013, 15:33 »
SS have been contacted. Just hope that whoever it was never made payout.
I'm surprised in a way that reviewers don't pick up on so many good and diverse images, in so many obviously different styles, being submitted by a brand new contributor. One glance at that port and it was clearly not the work of an individual.
500
« on: September 21, 2013, 15:23 »
Those are stolen images from multiple other contributors. The first images were uploaded in mid-June from their ID numbers.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 210
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
