|
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 - Quevaal
51
« on: September 07, 2006, 03:33 »
I accidentally found it right after posting!  Btw. wasn't that you who had the free pic of the week at iStock recently? Congrats! Did you get a lot of downloads as a result?
52
« on: September 06, 2006, 22:58 »
Is this still on?
Where do I apply?
53
« on: September 06, 2006, 22:55 »
No such tendency here:
Jan: 0,48
Feb: 0,54
Mar: 0,50
Apr: 0,52
May: 0,48
Jun: 0,56
Jul: 0,56
Aug: 0,50
Sep: 0,50
Overall average: 0,52
I think maybe the type of pictures you sell will have something to say. For instance, while textures aren't the hottest subject around, I believe they're fairly more used by print designers rather than web site owners, so they'll want them in larger sizes. Other shots on the other hand, will be more used on web sites.
So, maybe the pics you have uploaded in the beginning of the year were more used in print.
54
« on: September 06, 2006, 22:14 »
At IS, there's a lot of categories, and I've found that when browsing and selecting categories, it helps me think of more keywords.
(Btw. IS is waiting for photographers to actively use the categories, before making them public.)
55
« on: September 06, 2006, 21:58 »
There used to be a limit of 8MB, but they finally raised it to 16MB now with the new servers.
56
« on: September 06, 2006, 21:53 »
At Shutterstock I have two referred photographers, but one of them never seemed to upload anything. The other one, has uploaded a few pics, and I keep getting some money from her, although it's not much.
I just signed up at Dreamstime and they at least have a nice referral programme in the respect that you get 5USD just for posting a badge on your site, but you only get percents for half a year(and the first half year is not when the big money comes).
57
« on: September 04, 2006, 03:42 »
F*** them.
I just told them to close my account there.
I've had it with their F***ing high brow rejection notices. They live in the North of Norway(= mega rural), but take special care to sound like some posh Cambridge twats. Any money from them is purely hypothetical and long in the future, and so I'm not going to waste my time uploading and get slapped in the face with their stupid little notes afterwards.
58
« on: August 29, 2006, 19:02 »
Hey, have a sense of humour, guys. It's a joke.
EDIT: I hope
59
« on: August 18, 2006, 16:19 »
Well, it seems they've found a way to reduce their queue. They're rejecting everything. I expected some rejections, but they're rejecting photos that have been accepted, and sold, on other sites.
Puhlease.
They've been kind to me. I had expected massive rejections to shorten the queue, but I've had just a few.
60
« on: August 16, 2006, 09:29 »
Well, there's new limits in town. Just as the exclusives got a raise, everyone else had to do with lower uploads. Upload LimitLimit: 25 files per 168 hour period
File(s) Uploaded: 38
File(s) Remaining: -13
61
« on: August 16, 2006, 09:25 »
Btw. when it comes to paper, just use a scanner if you've got one.
62
« on: August 16, 2006, 01:15 »
Thanks!
I'll skip the last one at least.
Any views about the other options? Anyone here that don't check them off?
63
« on: August 16, 2006, 00:27 »
Could you perhaps upload a 100% crop?
64
« on: August 16, 2006, 00:26 »
One thing: I'm submitting photos, and there's no good explanation to be found regarding these things that I may check off or not. Increase Max. Copies (I-EL)
Web Usage (W-EL)
Print Usage (P-EL)
Sell the rights (SR-EL) I especially wonder what the deal is with "Sell the rights (SR-EL)"
65
« on: August 14, 2006, 21:21 »
I'm always saying this but:
Alexa is not a reliable source of stats. Alexa only counts visitors with the Alexa toolbar installed. I don't have it. Do you?
66
« on: August 14, 2006, 21:17 »
They finally reviewed some of my pics, and I have to say that their rejection messages piss me off * Your choice of composition did not accord with our standards.
We invite you to address these concerns.
Thank you for your interest in Crestock and in participating in our
collection. Anyway, I only upload the casual picture that I'm satisfied with there, and won't spend a lot of time trying to please them.
67
« on: August 14, 2006, 21:13 »
For me, it's starting to pick up, so I'll definitely continue, especially as it's so easy to upload.
68
« on: August 13, 2006, 19:33 »
What is lisa G going to do with a Canon 30D?
I think it will be a 'newish' person with a nice portfolio. I think it will be the 'best' portfolio from the 1000 people that submit around the time that the 1,000,000 image is reviewed.
Surely, it has to be the 1 000 000th image accepted?
69
« on: August 13, 2006, 13:07 »
They are artwork, so even though illegal, you still need a model release.
It's a strange world we live in when the rights of criminals are above the rights of the rest of the folk.
Fotolia takes grafitti, iStock doesn't (stupid Canadian Walmart of microstocks), Dreamstime and Shutterstock sometimes.
I agree about the stuff with criminals, but I also think that the bigger you are, the bigger the chance of getting sued. Neither sxc.hu takes graffiti btw. In my opinion, they should have different attitude to clearly illegal graffiti and legal pieces.
71
« on: August 12, 2006, 22:12 »
I'm registered, and have a few uploads, but no sales. They pride themselevs on being strict, so I have been strict with myself. (Besides, I haven't bothered much either.)
Currently, the reviews take extremely long time. Longer than iStock...
72
« on: August 12, 2006, 20:45 »
Hmm, maybe I'll have a go. I could easily get a lot accepted there, seing as my combined IS/SS/StockXpert pics totals around 1100. Personally, I'm quite happy with iStock, and less happy with SS. But if Dreamstime is in the neighbourhood of SS, then that will still mean the occasional paycheck. Oh, Leaf, I signed up through your account, so that means $$$s for you.
73
« on: August 12, 2006, 20:00 »
Yeah, the lack of FTP is annoying. There was a survey a few weeks ago, and I said it was a problem and that their upload manager is pretty useless. (I really don't get how to use the * thing.)
I think there are some security issues related to FTP, so maybe that's why.
As for the categories, I'm much more positive. They were a pain in the beginning, and I posted a stern message in the forums, but I think they're OK now.
74
« on: August 12, 2006, 18:48 »
I have The Gallery of Weird Textures, and it's got 784 views. I've received some positive feedback about it when posting in the forums, and since I deal mainly in textures, I think that the lightbox draws attention of texture users. Not many of the pictures in it are my own though, but there's a few. When I add pictures, I'm quite picky, so I'm actually very satisfied with the contents. http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=51027
75
« on: August 12, 2006, 18:43 »
I don't think so  my bet is on a scandinavian photographer with small portfolio but all very stylised portraits on location.
Thanks!  (Oh wait, I don't have portraits.)
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
