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 - Eireann
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
51
« on: August 05, 2011, 12:03 »
I'm going to agree with Disorderly. July was a great month for me at 123. June wasn't bad either. Well done the agency, whatever you're doing, it's working. At least in my case Your commission is fair, the site is easy to deal with, and I wish you best of luck. Up you go guys, on to number 4
52
« on: August 05, 2011, 11:57 »
There's something happening to me. It started last September (although I was never a big fan of IStock). Every single time I login to that site, I have a strange feeling of discomfort and disappointment. A bitter taste in my mouth. I want to get out of there as fast as possible. Hence my vote for 'strongly dislike'. As a buyer and as a contributor, no, I don't like them at all. But hope never dies and who knows, the newly appointed Rebbeca might be able to turn things around ...
53
« on: August 03, 2011, 14:13 »
Hi Jsnover, unfortunately for me the 15% (exclusive 25%) commission at IStock is what matters most. I can't quite accept it regardless of the net. Speaking of net, I'm not sure what to do with the odd 0.7 cent / 0.9 cent sale at IStock. Dreamstime is doing better in my case. But we're all different Hi Pseudo, I like DT's admins more than the admins at IStock, or Fotolia or even SS (SS admins are good though, I like them too). I remember you had a few arguments on DT's forums and I understand why you might feel differently. Hi Lirch, I'm thinking of going exclusive myself. One day, if I live long enough  And that's a big 'if' And I'm curious, since uploading, reviewing, 60% commission, search engine, consistent sales, site stability, good customer service and so on are not considered 'strong points' in your view, what other factors are? I'm curious and willing to learn ...
54
« on: August 02, 2011, 12:49 »
Lirch, I love your work and from my own, personal point of view, I wish you were exclusive at Dreamstime already : ) No agency is perfect, but I like Dreamstime the most. Uploading, reviews, site stability, search engine, customer support, the fact that top people, (Achilles) are involved and rather easily accessible, sales and consistency, paid assignments, high referral incentives, almost everything about the agency speaks in favour of Dreamstime. I like them and if I ever grow strong enough to go exclusive, Dreamstime is my choice. Exclusive commission - 60%. On top of that, they pay something like 0.20 cent for each exclusive upload. I understand that this is your own, personal choice and I hope you don't rush into anything and take the road that best suits your workflow and your financial targets. Good luck and best wishes either way
55
« on: July 29, 2011, 06:09 »
The stamp is good Dave, truly good. They've made a mistake, it should not have been rejected. And I absolutely agree. The blue version should outsell the coloured version. They made a mistake. Try again, it looks simple but the stamp is a good illustration and it will sell. Try again
56
« on: July 19, 2011, 10:35 »
I don't ignore anyone. I never will. I don't see the point. Much less do I see the point in adding a button to ignore whole threads! Hahaha! People really are either very sensitive, think too highly of themselves or have too much time on their hands  No, I don't need that button. But have it if you want to ... I don't mind
57
« on: June 24, 2011, 11:15 »
A slider? With dots? Why dots? And once again IStock complicates things unnecessarily. Or perhaps, in this case at least, they want it this way. Confusing.
Why not simple price ranges, like everybody else? Not even selecting by collections would do it. What about new buyers, (designers or not), for whom buttons like 'Exclude Agency', 'Exclude Vetta' don't mean a thing?
Price ranges are the best solution, simple, easy to follow and suit everyone. But of course, they won't do it. Which is fine by me.
58
« on: June 20, 2011, 16:15 »
Hi Gannet77, you're giving me a niche search. I don't expect many designers to use it, but so be it. I tried the following searches : 'Highland Games Scotland', 'Scottish Highland Games' and 'Scottish Highland Games California'. On both sites. Results : Quality wise - equal if not slightly better on Shutterstock Relevancy - equal (with some Vetta images of 'Fly Fishing' and 'Mountain Bikers' tossed in on IStock for good measure) Not to mention that 'Scottish Highland Games California' gives zero results on IStock and 21 on Shutterstock. All in all, even on this niche search, including editorial, Shutterstock offers a better choice.
So yes, Gannet, really.
PS Ah, and by the way. I like Dreamstime a lot and went and searched for 'Highland Games Scotland'. 117 beautiful images. On this particular search Dreamstime might just come up on top. The main reason buyers leave IStock is because they can find same, or better quality images on the other sites. At affordable prices and using a faster, more user-friendly search engine.
59
« on: June 20, 2011, 13:41 »
Hi Stockmarketer,  'The quality threshold of IStock is set higher than all the other sites' - you say, and I have to agree. Absolutely true. Except there's a catch. It only applies to independent files. There is plenty of crap on IStock, and by plenty I mean thousands and thousands of images. The vast majority of those questionable files come from exclusive contributors. Not only newbies, bronze level, but also golds and diamonds. Thousands of images. Submitted today, to SS, or Fotolia or even Dreamstime those files would not eveb come close to acceptance. Guaranteed. There is a difference between the way IStock reviews independent versus exclusive files. And it's understandable. And I still stand by my point - perform any search, on IS and SS. Compare quality. Equal results, or even, at times, better on SS. Plus, a lot more variety and a faster search. Not to mention prices. All in all, a better experience. Designers are not stupid. They know what to go for.
60
« on: June 20, 2011, 12:05 »
I have to agree with JasV - quoted here by Vlad the Impaler. Quality is very important. So is variety, choice. And a relevant search engine. And in some cases, prices.
This is why Shutterstock, not IStock, is the market leader.
Because of quality, diversity and the search engine. Please note - quality comes first.
Let's make this clear: files at Shutterstock are as good, or, at times, a lot better than what IStock has on offer. And there's a lot more of them.
The idea that Shutterstock accepts 'the worst' and it's suitable for 'amateur producers of content chances' is an insult to SS submitters, and absolutely not true. It's a myth (might have been true a long time ago) that needs to be put to rest, once and for all.
I would strongly advise JasV (whoever he is), to perform a few searches, on any subject, at IS and SS. There's a very good chance that the 'Audi' file he's so fond of, will be found on SS, rather than IS. Faster and at a reasonable price.
There are many reasons why buyers leave IStock and move to SS. The quality of the collection plays a very important role. And it's there, on SS, undeniable.
61
« on: June 18, 2011, 19:22 »
Hi Louis, no, you shouldn't be doing any collages, (unless the images call for such a composition), and you're absolutely right to be annoyed. I'm not sure where this 'make collages' story comes from (a request from a confused buyer perhaps), but it's not right and you shouldn't be doing it. I'm not a designer (I work for a small print house) and although we have thousands of images on our hard drives, there's barely a collage or two (Yuri's I believe). I like to have full control over the way I position my images, and more often than not collages don't fit the bill. We don't really buy them Don't do it I like Dreamstime a lot and I can only hope they'll change their minds about this 'make collages' affair soon enough That's before they upset most of you.
62
« on: June 13, 2011, 12:38 »
Hi Luis  , the story, as far as I know, is that Deposit Photos is somehow related to Deposit Files. Deposit Files is a free hosting/sharing site. People upload/download files on their servers, for free. Some of those files are illegal and some might even be stolen photos. However Deposit Files' management is not breaking any laws. The service is free and by law they are not required to check the source of every single file uploaded on their servers. In that sense, the site operates a bit like Flickr. That has nothing at all to do with Deposit Photos, except that they share the same owner (? - possibly). I understand that some of you might have doubts. Some might even refuse to upload on moral grounds. I respect that; after all, I'm doing it myself. I stopped uploading and deleted my port on IStock for the same reason. Moral grounds. We see morality in many, many different ways, and that's fine. In my view Deposit Photos is not to blame for the legality of some of the files uploaded on Deposit Files. And for now at least, they're certainly not stealing my images. When it comes to Deposit Photos as a microstock agency, this is my experience : - fast and easy upload - fast and consistent reviewing (no more than 3 days, no surprise rejections) - fast and reliable payouts (around 4 days, or faster) - growing collection (Yuri is there too), stable site - fair commission and no drama What about sales? This is where the good news come. Deposit Photos is one site that in my case is experiencing a constant growth. Over the past few months, constant, real growth. Yesterday for example, (Sunday), I didn't have any sales at Fotolia, 123, Veer or BigStock. I had one at DepositPhotos. A sub, unfortunately. But I also sold ELs over there. All in all, I would definitely recommend the site. It's going in the right way. But be aware, a lot of the sales (more than half in my case) are subs - 0.30 cent. Good luck
63
« on: June 03, 2011, 17:11 »
Warren, angry? vindictive? Not at all ... Is this how I came out? I apologise, I never intended to upset you. I actually like you very much Warren. Lovely sense of humour and beautiful port And now I'm just going to leave it at that
64
« on: June 03, 2011, 16:54 »
Stockastic, you and Warren are not the only 2 contributors to have had some problems with Achilles in the past. There are a few more. I don't know what the story is, but I've got over 80 posts on Dreamstime forums myself and spent some time over there. Never saw him acting weird. I wouldn't like it either. And I'm happy he's there. Approachable. It gives me confidence in the agency, it's reasuring. And it's a lot better than being completely ignored. In my view that's arrogance.
But you never know, perhaps it would be better if Achilles would start ignoring the forums altogether? Possibly...
65
« on: June 03, 2011, 15:35 »
I'll have to disagree, Warren. I'm sorry Let's make this point clear - no agency is perfect. Period. Some show a lot of arrogance, some less than that and some none at all. When it comes to arrogance, (and not only), IStock is the worst. What makes IStock's arrogance even more irrititating is that is based on past achievements. They're a bunch of 'have beens' living in the past. They're not the best agency anymore, but they still think and act as if they were. And when it comes to Dreamstime, I'm sorry to say, but you're blinded by personal matters. There's something going on between you and Achilles (and has been for some time), and you can't seem to be able to let it go. What stops you from moving on? Is it arrogance? Pride? Let it go Warren, free yourself. Dreamstime is not a bad agency and thery're certainly not half as arrogant as IStock. Can you honestly tell me how many times have you seen KKThompson or Jon Oringer engaging in conversations with contributors? Any contributor - exclusive or not. Not many. Achilles does that all the time. Now whether you like the man or not is another matter. I personally have never spoken to him, or to anyone at Dreamstime, but I like the fact that he's there, approachable to all of us. It's not arrogance, it's a good thing and makes Dreamstime a bit more special. Let personal matters go, whatever he told you, at least he took the time to reply. Try that with KK Thompson at IStock. See how far you get. Keep smiling Warren, makes you a pleasure to read and be around
66
« on: June 02, 2011, 16:25 »
There seems to be a problem with Shutterstock reviews lately (a month or two?). There's one thing to raise the bar on quality, (we all agree with that), and another to keep on rejecting perfectly good stock images. It can't go on this way, it's a real problem and they need to address that. Sooner rather than later. Off topic Thank you all for the best wishes. I'm in for a very difficult fight with very little chance of success. But it is what it is, I have to accept it. Such is life. Thank you And get well soon Lisa! Wishing you a speedy recovery after the surgery; it's not easy and you need to take good care of yourself! Keep close to your hubby and daughter and let the pampering begin A short vacation to a place you love might also be on the cards? You deserve it Best of luck
67
« on: June 02, 2011, 06:20 »
Hi Sharpshot, You're not alone, I was thinking about it too. And I feel like a fool. It's only a handful of us who have deleted ports / stopped uploading since the changes anyway. Clearly we're too small fish to make any difference. While back in January I deleted my port, (almost) everyone else kept on filling their weekly quotas like there was no tomorrow. Newbies, golds, diamonds and above, everyone rushed in. There was no deleting of images, no slowdown in uploading; there wasn't even a selective upload plan - give your best images to the other sites, let IStock have the rest. Do something. There 'are' ways to fight Getty without having to sacrifice your first born. But it never worked. The reason? Newbies - well, they're newbies and thrilled with every sale. Established, important contributors, photographers who have a say and can actually make a difference, are all somehow struggling for survival. Every one of them. They have families. Large families. And mortgages. And taxes. And children. And education fees and expensive medical bills. It's a tough world out there and without IStock they will all be homeless. Can't bear the thought. So what are you to do Sharpshot? Go ahead and start uploading. No two ways about it. Try Thinkstock as well (I'm serious; apparently people sell hundreds of licences a month on ThinkStock alone), try Photo+ too and take advantage of every opportunity IStock opens to you. It's only fair, thank you for trying your best to help us all, and good luck I've been thinking about it too. And I've got a very good reason. It's not an excuse, it's real. I'm very, very ill and I need every cent. But I can't do it. It's impossible; trust me, I tried. IStock's BS (and upload page), make me sicker than the medical treatment I have to endure right now. There's something about that site. I can't even look at it without feeling nauseous. On moral grounds, on principles and not for the life of me (literally). I can't upload to IStock. But the best of luck to you, thank you for everything you tried to do and get busy selling
68
« on: June 01, 2011, 20:16 »
Absolutely right, Michael and Nruboc. The usage of those icons is a very clever idea. Wearing a tiny crown made of pixels makes mediocre camera users (with over 250 downloads), feel as if they're certified photographers, art college and all. Like, you know, the real deal. The elite, la creme de la creme. Since I'm not a fan of IStock I wish they would get rid of the icons. And keep Lobo as King Moderator forever. He does a lot of damage to the site, all by himself. And from where I stand, that's good news. May Lobo long last ...
69
« on: May 04, 2011, 17:36 »
CThoman, sorry, we're not seeing things in the same way We're looking at different sets of values. Dreamstime below Istock? On a list of favourites? Everything about IStock (from my point of view) is worse, or a lot worse than Dreamstime. This is what I'm looking for in a site. Uploading. Reviewing. Commission. Customer service. Search engine. Site stability. Buyer friendly. Accessability, open policy, contact with HQ. A happy, friendly community is a bonus. Generosiy is also much appreciated (remember the 100% day? and 110 for exclusives? They paid their exclusives from their own pockets. And they paid us, indies too. That's generous in my view, and I'm grateful). On every single one of those points IStock fails. Regarding sales, mine are much higher at Dreamstime - has always been the case. But I know that in your case things are a lot different and I understand that you might be feeling differently. As Stockastic put it - to each his own
70
« on: May 04, 2011, 15:30 »
I would never ignore anyone either. I don't see the point. But I have to agree with Sharpshot. You're becoming very negative and it seems to me, especially so with Dreamstime. No site is perfect. Full stop. But Dreamstime is one of the best, hands down. (My most favourite). A level 0 subscription for 0.35 is bad, but not that bad. At Dreamstime, thanks to their levels, your image will soon climb up and so will your commission. It's not much, but it's something. But of course, you already knew all that. I'm thinking, you're not submitting to Thinkstock, are you? After all they only pay 0.28 cent with no chance for an increase... Keep positive Stockastic, not everything micro is as bad as it looks and sometimes it's even a bit of fun
71
« on: April 07, 2011, 13:21 »
I stopped uploading as soon as the announcement was made. I pulled my port before the changes took place.
And I am absolutely going to take all the time needed to let all my customers (friends, family and everyone I know included), know that IStock should be avoided like the plague. Like the plague. Compared to the other sites IStock prices are too high, their images are in now way special or unique anymore, the multitude of collections, crowns, canisters, exclusive, only somewhat exclusive, part exclusive, independent, partners and so on, are bewildering to say the least, their search engine never works and their customer services are slow and unhelpful. They also happen to pay the lowest commission in the industry. And have the crappiest upload system. Of course, but of course I'm going to bad mouth them. I have been doing it for months and until they come to their senses, I'll never stop. No designer should buy at IStock anymore. There is no practical reason for them to do so.
To the OP - can you not at least delete some of your clips? Or stop uploading? Are you really in danger of starvation if you do so?
72
« on: January 14, 2011, 09:09 »
Shutterstock payments :
Subscription : 0.33 cent OD : 1.88 / 2.88
Port size : 480 (or so, not counting identical vector - raster) Took me about 10 months to reach 0.33 level but I'm in no way special.
And then, there are contributors like L. Davila. A very, very talented and successful illustrator. His first month at SS (not even a full month), 1 page port, (20 - 25 illustrations), - over 800 downloads. (Wow!) Next month - December - he was already on 0.33 level. It took him about 5 weeks to reach it. But I have to admit, he's exceptional. Not many can compare to his performance.
73
« on: January 12, 2011, 08:02 »
I'm down to 11 images in my IStock port, it's not going to affect me, but I'm curious, where do you see those stats? Since the introduction of Sexy F5 I've never even touched my contributor page. The scrolling drives me crazy, up the walls. Where is that info? Where do you see your RC? Can anyone help? I'm curious Thank you, UPDATE : Never mind, found it!
74
« on: January 06, 2011, 08:00 »
I'm part of a very small minority. The 10% or so. But I'm used with it already. For some strange reason I always end up being part of the minority. For the past 10 days I've been deleting my IStock port. I'm doing it as we speak. I will not sell any of my images for anything less than 20%. I do not believe in the concept 'well, this is how microstock works, there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to accept it'. I, for one, don't have to accept it. And there are very, very few photographers who truly can't afford to delete their IStock ports. Most can. Quite easily. But they won't do it. Because 'a sale is a sale', '0.50 cent is better than nothing', and the power of money. No matter how little. Getty is not the only culprit here. We're involved as well. And Getty made a mistake. They should have pushed things further. 10% commission would have worked just as well for most contributors. Ah well, there's still time ...
75
« on: December 23, 2010, 06:49 »
Impaler, Gostwyck is a very successful contributor. He makes a lot of money with IStock. Most probably a lot more than you do, keep in mind he's an independent. It's difficult for him to delete his port right away. Not to worry though! He can't do it, but I can! I'm deleting my images as we speak. Hope your day is brighter now and you feel a bit better ...
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 15
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|