|
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 - DallasP
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
51
« on: May 11, 2019, 07:19 »
They several times mention a curated collection of 1 million images that will be part of this "program".
So this isn't the whole collection. Perhaps they have done a deal with one of the large factories to permit this use? Based on these descriptions, it doesn't sound like it's our content. More like those collections of not-so-great images that are sold as a bundle with resale rights; or the wholly owned stuff that Jupiter used to have.
The bad part about this is that instead of trying to build new revenue options for all their contributors, they're putting energy into siphoning off a portion of the market that we will no longer get to sell into - assuming this is a successful program.
People buying images through this sales channel won't be buying from the main Shutterstock collection - less business for us (when it's already showing year to year declines in sales)
Already 5 feet down, just needed one more ...
52
« on: April 09, 2019, 07:59 »
I'm not buying the MBZ argument that the car transformed the art into something else.
I wonder if what they had meant to say that "the subject matter of the photo had changed" to ... the car with the mural in the background? This seems silly...
53
« on: April 06, 2019, 13:26 »
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
If you're buying a vector ... you don't care about the jpg anyway.
They have apparently created a inefficient vector to raster algorithm that has the prerequisite that the vector design has a minimum size; by using AI or CorelDraw, when you import vector design to raster you are always able to increase the final size of the raster file without doing any change in the vecor design what is logical understanding how vector graphics works.
Since this is the case, I'm just going to start saving all of my photos for upload as EPS and sending them in as vectors.
54
« on: April 05, 2019, 18:34 »
Converting eps files to nice looking jpegs isn't always an easy process. I'm not sure why they want the responsibility.
Also, I agree 2500x1500 seems pretty large for the artboard. I would think that would be annoyingly large for customers to work with.
If you're buying a vector ... you don't care about the jpg anyway.
55
« on: April 05, 2019, 18:33 »
I'm not sure why that would even matter if it's a true vector file with no raster effects.
56
« on: March 19, 2019, 22:03 »
I think I might just move everything to Adobe Stock. Has anyone gone exclusive FT/AS? I haven't contributed work since ... well since whenever I realized that SS royalties were only 12.5 cents and I've got a hell of alot better things to do than sorting and uploading all of these for pennies. I like the quarters rolling in though ... and like the way that they're doing it (as a contributor AND a buyer). Even the subscription price seems more legitimate than the pricing model at other places.
I'm listening to this Seth Godin thing he said something like "The problem with the race to the bottom, is you might actually win"
I get like ... 2 payouts a year, like why . do I care. The self hosted site paid for itself and let me have at least the freedom of what to do ... I'm about sick of this crap.
Maybe I'm bitching about something irrelevant to SS specifically then. My point is I'm kinda sick of the circus and want it to be fun again. Sorry for the rant.
When did SS change to 12.5 cents? I still get 38 cents minimum. https://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts
57
« on: March 18, 2019, 21:07 »
I think I might just move everything to Adobe Stock. Has anyone gone exclusive FT/AS? I haven't contributed work since ... well since whenever I realized that SS royalties were only 12.5 cents and I've got a hell of alot better things to do than sorting and uploading all of these for pennies. I like the quarters rolling in though ... and like the way that they're doing it (as a contributor AND a buyer). Even the subscription price seems more legitimate than the pricing model at other places.
I'm listening to this Seth Godin thing he said something like "The problem with the race to the bottom, is you might actually win"
I get like ... 2 payouts a year, like why . do I care. The self hosted site paid for itself and let me have at least the freedom of what to do ... I'm about sick of this crap.
58
« on: March 13, 2019, 13:14 »
Title says it all. I'm genuinely interested in figuring out how can I make $150/year from stock photos/videos?
It's fun to do - now I'd like to figure out how to reach those numbers. Figured I may as well ask in case anyone has some good ideas. Ideas/suggestions?
Perhaps - hypothetically - imagine you personally *were* currently making $150/year from microstock. What would you have to be doing to acheive that?
Thanks!
$150 a year is quite realistic. You'll need about 150-300 images spread out at at least a dozen agencies. Ideally they'll have excellent technical standards (focus, low noise, even lighting, plenty of copy space). The content should be in-demand and ideally model-released with young attractive people doing fun activities in an authentic manner. Then you'll want to keyword the images to an excellent level using relevant keywords so buyers can find those images.
$150 a year is very reasonable and I hope that answers your question. Good luck! 
lol. He want's $150k though (per the title). He just forgot the "k" in the description.
59
« on: March 01, 2019, 17:26 »
POSITION
49,500th
lol
60
« on: February 19, 2019, 21:03 »
I cannot believe that a software sometimes calculates wrong and sometimes right ... why does this mistake affect only a few sales (and most of all the bigger ones!)  Please give us a conclusive explanation of this!
And since your software cannot be trusted (at the moment) ... please give us the names of the buyers of these incorrectly calculated downloads, so that we can double-check this ourselves.
This is the only way you can regain lost trust!
All of us know, it was not the first time, AS calculates wrong ...
I don't know if you've ever coded before or not but, when you start working with thousands of functions, thousands of people and millions of lines of code. Stuff has a way of doing things that you don't expect when building it. lol.
61
« on: February 10, 2019, 17:32 »
Logic fails when one person, which is why I started this, claims that global warming, causes colder Winter events.
I tried to explain this with the ice and glass of water example. When the icebergs melt the ocean will become colder and cold oceans make for colder winters. When all the ice melts then the water will start getting hot.
Of course the earth is not a glass of water with ice and is much more unpredictable.
lol. I giggled at the first glass of water example too. It's like a glass of ice water, that's set on a low burner ... and is covered in greenhouse glass ... and is spinning causing a coriolis effect and the burner is actually in the middle of the glass ... and the warm water/air causes currents, sometimes very turbulent ones ... and the ice is only at the top and bottom. I don't argue much with deniers. In the political arena I can only imagine that they have a vested interest in the use of oil and coal because I tend to believe these people to be educated and partially intelligent ... I often stand corrected. Regardless of the timeline on global warming and whatever effect it's having on WEATHER patterns, the CLIMATE is changing at a rate that a majority of scientists believe is more rapid than it should be. Set that aside, and realize that we are in fact destroying our home ... anyone drink tap water lately? or visit the ocean? what's the air quality like where you live? Weather/climate argument or not ... I think we can do better. Edit: Oh, and the burner moves 23.5 degrees up from middle half the time, and 23.5 degrees below the middle half the time. And half the time the burner is closer than the other half.
62
« on: January 08, 2019, 13:46 »
Portfolios with spam are definitely a problem. The site is so infested with bad similars, what buyer would want to wade through all that. When you spam, you arent the only one who suffers...everyone does.
Agreed, when I go to buy an image and search something there are about 40,000 of the same exact thing at a slightly different angle. This is one of the main reasons why I don't have a shutterstock subscription. Adobe has just done better in this regard, even though there are some that are "grandfathered" in that do that ... it's less prevalent. Today for instance, I need some fake eyelash photos for a full width image slider ... 4 pages in on SS and I've seen maybe one that's appealing. (I'll go buy it with the sub anyway.)
63
« on: January 08, 2019, 13:21 »
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If your camera is limited in bit rate, which many are,
My old consumer grade Nikon isn't ... nor my phone ... It's literally just doubling the amount of stored frames. I should add, 60 fps isn't very impressive. Really you need about 120fps before it starts to look all smooth and buttery. Software interpolation doesn't help much either if there aren't the extra frames to work with. (edit:sorry for the double post again)
64
« on: January 08, 2019, 13:13 »
I don't think higher fps sells the same or more as 30fps, same case as with 4k comparing to full HD. Reasonable file size is probably important thing to most buyers, and full HD 30fps provides good quality and not too big files. Higher quality than that is rarely needed.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
Right, but assuming that it doesn't limit the frame size, it's better to shoot for more than what you need.
65
« on: January 06, 2019, 23:07 »
Waiting for more Info before I do anything.We could use something fresh.....If it's real and actually fresh.For a Lot of us. this ain't our first Rodeo.
There were people - typically larger contributors - who went for the Dollar Photo Club too. They heard all the arguments against this approach - good for the agency and buyers; deeply unfair and destructive for contributors - but supplied them anyway.
I expect the same portfolios, probably for the same reasons, will supply OnePixel.
The good news - from the contributor point of view - is that this time there's no established agency behind the startup, so there's no strong-arming of unwilling portfolios into the dumpster fire of an bargain-basement agency.
That's about the only good news about a parasitic business like this. It adds no new buyers, no new features or business model; it's just predatory on price trying to poach business from other agencies where contributors can make more in royalties.
I wasn't against DPC at first either but, I thought it would just be a smallish jpg of my vectors and things. I deleted my portfolio when they paid me like 12 cents for a vector.
66
« on: January 05, 2019, 15:04 »
horizontal images tend to work in many more cases than verticals
They also display better on most of the sites.
67
« on: December 21, 2018, 22:22 »
68
« on: December 17, 2018, 21:15 »
Reported cloudflare about it.
My attempt failed. I was hit with a reply which basically said that as I wasn't the copyright holder I couldn't make a claim.
I hovered my hands over the keyboard ready to explain how my own images were potentially in jeopardy, but I felt it would fall on deaf ears...
I'm ignorant in these matters, but do I understand it right that Cloudflare are making their money by stopping sites involved with illegality (in this case stealing images from Shutterstock) from being taken down or interfered with?
No, not at all. CloudFlare is a Content Delivery Network (CDN). Without doubt, at least one (likely all) of the major stock agencies will rely on a CDN. (AWS, CloudFlare, Rackspace, MAXCDN)
A CDN offers to deliver your website to customers from their nearest web server which reduces load times. For example, P5 is a NYC based agency and will likely have a customer from Australia. There is a significant lag for someone from Oz to request a video preview and have it delivered fast to Oz from NY. So what a CDN does is offer to deliver a copy of your website from their Oz datacenter and essentially deliver the video in the fastest possible way to the customer without them thinking there's an overseas delay.
The issue is that these websites are now being hosted by a third party company. Whilst they aren't directly responsible for what they're being asked to host, they do require their clients to sign terms to agree not to use their hosting services for illegal purposes (one would be the aforementioned website).
So CloudFlare and other CDNs don't stop anything illegal from being hosted, until it's reported, unless they pick up on it themselves. The illegal bit they DO stop is a DDOS attack - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack
The CDNs attempt to stop and hinder these DDOS attacks as a priority because it directly hinders their own servers. So it's very common for small websites with little to no traffic, but with great risk of attempted shutdowns to use a CDN as a means of protection. All that any stock agency has to do to shut a website like this down is to find a company who performs DDOS attacks and pay them to hammer the site. My guess to attack this site (without a CDN backing it) would be about $10-50 a day. As a comparison, with the CDN active, I couldn't put a price on it - these companies pride themselves on protecting your website from these attacks.
CDNs are all basically extra places for your data to live, so that it can be served up from the closest location and, in event of failure, maintain operation. Rackspace servers like ~$500/mo or something.
69
« on: December 17, 2018, 15:10 »
You are definitely right about SEO. Before posting I looked around to give the links a nofollow tag in the forum format, but I couldn't find anything. Any ideas how I could do that?
Even nofollow builds backlinks and domain authority ...
70
« on: December 17, 2018, 15:08 »
Adobe After Effects, DaVinci Resolve or Final Cut Pro X (with Motion) would probably be the most common software choices.
They still make Final Cut? lol. Adobe Premiere and After Effects should do all you need Charged. If you've already got the suite then they're right there ready to use. Good luck! I can't even get a video accepted.
71
« on: December 17, 2018, 14:16 »
I believe keywording is all-around faster in bridge but, my LR is a mess. Finding stuff in there is getting to be impossible.
72
« on: December 17, 2018, 14:12 »
why are you thinking, that this site was from russia?))
Because it is ... ISP TimeWeb Ltd. Usage Type Data Center/Web Hosting/Transit Hostname(s) moesha.timeweb.ru Domain Name Unknown Country Russian Federation City Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburg
73
« on: December 04, 2018, 16:21 »
Would it not be a ton better to just use a camera and Adobe Premiere? Even a decent phone video is pretty poor.
74
« on: November 24, 2018, 18:56 »
75
« on: November 16, 2018, 18:11 »
Self hosted in the poll results is for people who have their own personal sites. A few make money but I think most people will find it difficult to make much more than they spend on hosting and advertising.
Hosting is cheap, and with a tiny bit of technical knowledge it's easy. Advertising is expensive. The only really successful ones are like Chromaco and a few others with a highly developed craft in a specific niche. Is "Self-Hosted" out of business?
Just wondering since the link does not work here and I kind of wanted to explore it.
Thanks. 
Take those poll numbers as a grain of salt. Self hosted for example might have some revenues but, profits are going to be difficult to calculate on a monthly basis ... and I don't think people are reporting accurately anyways because, AdobeStock should be almost overtaking Shutterstock. lol.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
