|
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 - Phil
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 67
476
« on: June 18, 2010, 20:24 »
I'd say: The more signatures, the merrier 
LOL this the 'rejection' email Hello, Thank you for submitting Photo 23552263. However we discovered a problem (legal problem, lack of signature, wrong file format, or it was illegible) with the model/property release that you submitted. Please remember that the release must be submitted as a JPEG or PDF file. As a result of this problem your photo has not been validated. In order to protect photographers from possible legal action Fotolia is very strict with regards to legal issues such as this. You may download a copy of the Fotolia model and property release by logging into your account, clicking on the Information and Rights tab and then click on the Download Release button. To change the model release just click on the Edit button next to your photo in the My Photos section, replace the release with a new file and click ok to finish. Pictures of people will most often be your best sellers. Your extra time investment to submit a legal model release will have handsome rewards in the future. To discuss any technical problems/issues, please feel free to post and review messages on the Q&A board of the Fotolia forum. If you have any question please feel free to contact us at any time. I think they are just looking for the signature, but it would have been nice if they had a mail out.
477
« on: June 18, 2010, 20:21 »
We are looking forward to helping you determine which tax forms are appropriate and required by the I.R.S. and/or by Bigstock. someone at BigStock is looking forward to helping with tax forms? Really?? what sort of person looks forward to tax forms 
478
« on: June 18, 2010, 18:00 »
I got it too.
8 images of one my kids (It's an old release that I uploaded when I started and doesnt have my signature). Doesnt look though that they want shoot specific like IS though, just a bit tighter. (and I am pleased to see that they didnt do the full rejected please reupload, the images are back to waiting for me to click through and assign release etc)
479
« on: June 18, 2010, 17:53 »
think I'll wait until the site is out of beta, got a good buyer base, generating earnings and starts on the commission increases . I've put to much time into new sites and I dont see this model being sustainable for either the agency or photographer.
480
« on: June 16, 2010, 20:50 »
what's the news?
(although I now have happily had my images removed and no intention of going back)
481
« on: June 12, 2010, 16:47 »
roflmao!
482
« on: June 11, 2010, 06:21 »
thanks Alex for coming here and letting us know
483
« on: June 11, 2010, 06:20 »
we bought 2 blog sized images at canstock last weekend, purely because I can convert earnings to credits at any amount (basically enough for just for the 2 images). obviously I'm not a big buyer but who knows how many others are out there who dont want to buy credit packs.
484
« on: June 10, 2010, 17:46 »
To encourage discussion I searched "man laptop glasses"
out of the first 50 were
7 vetta, 9 exclusive+, 25 exclusive, 9 non-exclusive
Interesting. I know my June sales are in the toilet - hard to guess whether it is summer slump or declining search positions.
FWIW I did not have declining sales either of the last two summers at IS but this year it is hitting hard.
mine are not in the toilet but are down
485
« on: June 07, 2010, 21:59 »
I am curious how many % do you have in QC passed on Alamy or Corbis ;-)
I don't submit to Corbis, but I have over 5k on Alamy and have never had a rejection there. Do they actually reject images after your initial test batch??
I always thought Alamy inspectors are on auto-accept mode...
I got the feeling somewhere along the line that they consider your rejection rate. Basically if you dont get rejections then you are at top of queue and takes 24hrs-ish for approval (and basically someone skims your thumbnails . People who get rejections it is slower and they get examined more closely. But I dont know now where I got this idea.
486
« on: June 07, 2010, 21:50 »
Hi all, I have just come across this forum, and quite like all the chat about stock sites.
We run PhotoSales NZ, which is a New Zealand based site, catering to amature to semi-pro photographers throughout New Zealand, to show their photos off on.
In total now, we have been round for 3 years, like all sites, we have started very small, and grown and developed over that time.
Now we actually get our member photographers work in the events photography side of things, and they love the extra income that can provide for them.
We would welcome you to visit our site, to give comments and feedback as well.
Regards
PhotoSales NZ
www.photosales.co.nz
As the site is just for Kiwis, I am not sure what you are after here? (I'd be surprised if there wasnt a few hanging around, are you targetting them as potential contributors?). The site seems nice, easy to navigate etc. While I'm a big believer in watermarks, I dont really like the watermarks on the thumbnails. Rgds Phil
487
« on: June 07, 2010, 18:32 »
Thanks for all the helpful responses. I suppose I could argue that some of the images were taken from a helicopter and not in the park, but I guess the answer would be that all the air above the park is also their property! I'll just put it down to experience!
Steve
its images of the rock not just in the park (who knows what laws they are using  . when i looked at it a couple of years ago, it was images from aircraft they were most concerned about
488
« on: June 07, 2010, 16:20 »
received the email from them too. barely looked at the page but it seems they pay a % royalty on subscriptions sales, I'm not making that mistake again.
489
« on: June 07, 2010, 15:52 »
from my limited knowledge
There are areas that have spiritual / sacred significance that the traditional owners ask not to be photographed. Up to a couple of years ago you needed a commercial photography licence and in theory they would check your images to make sure they are appropriate.
They then changed the terms so that anyone using images of the rock needs a commercial licence and approval and put the onus on the end user. Whether this is revenue raiser or increased protection, whether there was an incident of inappropriate use I couldnt say, but basically anyone who buys your image needs a licence to use it commercially and as the stock sites cant enforce this so it has to be editorial only.
NSW National Parks require a commercial photogrpahy licence for any images taken in their parks. $275 a year or $110 if they can use your images. I think at least one of the other states has it too.
490
« on: June 06, 2010, 15:51 »
If you submit a series of images and two get rejected (perhaps the noise was a little high or the lighting a little less good or the focus a tad soft - sites are getting very persnickety about things). Do you really want to compete with yourself by having the free ones that were not quite good enough out there? How could that possibly be good for your business?
This is exactly what I was thinking.
I'd really like to see the performance data behind this free model. I get the idea but I question the benefits vs damage. Like how many freebie hunters get converted into paying buyers? How many images do they download for free versus pay for?
I feel for every image somebody gets for free that's one less image that gets paid for. One of us just lost a sale. The more "good enough" free images that exist for buyers the less they will buy. If there weren't any free images buyers would be forced to pay, take pictures themselves, or do without the image. If it's worth using it's worth paying something for. And again, isn't microstock cheap enough already?
Whenever you can get something for free that's "good enough" how often do pay for the upgraded version? Rarely?
I agree, for many years people said micro wouldn't do anything because poor quality. But for plenty it was 'good enough' and then through competition the standards rose, but some of my best sellers are not 'great' images and in a number of cases rejected on one site, good seller on another. My wife bought an image for her blog on the weekend, it cost a whole $1. I really dont see why we should give them away
491
« on: June 04, 2010, 04:46 »
thanks guys for those links, does it mean we can sell non-exclusive RM licensed images over several different agencies? like what we do for RF in microstock?
and i found out there is many website and agencies like age stockphoto, myloupe, acclaim..can we use all these agencies to sell same RM images?
if they are non-exclusive yes. have a look through some of the other threads here, a few of them have been mentioned before such as myloupe which is a total waste of time. but I think it is just as important is how many places / partners are selling that agencies photos, I see Jonathon Ross discussing spacesimages, which are exclusive but they are going to be sold by 80-odd agencies, I would think (but dont have much experience here) that it may be better to use this type of agency then half a dozen bottom ones?
492
« on: June 03, 2010, 19:55 »
funny the preconceptions from a name. I read the name and am expecting something real modern, cool, artsy, a bit 'out-there', pics of people jumping in front of grunge wall with electric guitar and shot with a ringflash but it looks like just a another site (cluttered and I find it all just distracting) with ads for south african accomodation on the front image rotation??
493
« on: June 03, 2010, 01:30 »
bridge
494
« on: June 02, 2010, 23:47 »
Help. I'm being repressed.
Be quiet, old woman!
Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system! (waiting for the right moment to be able to say You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!)
495
« on: June 02, 2010, 19:17 »
sad for the people who died. I saw the title of the thread and assumed it was a new site and thought I dont think much of the name
496
« on: June 02, 2010, 18:53 »
I demand a shrubbery! 
problem is those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history
497
« on: May 26, 2010, 15:57 »
the blur tool on a low opacity can be useful. or do a search for noise reduction in LAB, you put a blur on one of the colour channels? (I can really remember, but it's not too bad)
498
« on: May 26, 2010, 15:54 »
they normally compete with 123 and BigStock for 5-7 rank for me, this month is a bme and managed to earn more than the other 2 combined.
499
« on: May 25, 2010, 21:22 »
personally I find it more effective to clean the image up with topaz denoise or noise ninja at full size (making extra layer then brushing in brushing in via mask denoised copy) and then resize to pick the sharpness back up.
500
« on: May 25, 2010, 19:30 »
mine has gone up since I last noticed (last week), couldnt say how much or whether it is correct, just that it is higher.
Phil
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 67
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
