|
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 - VB inc
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26
501
« on: February 17, 2011, 10:11 »
hmmm... interesting... i always suspected something wasnt right with the speed at which his portfolio was growing at istock around a year and half ago. I thought to myself he wasnt alone in creating his works.
502
« on: February 16, 2011, 17:28 »
Any word on whether vlad_the_imp will be attending? There might be some poeple there that don't know how successful he is and this would be the perfect opportunity to inform them.
Real classy
He makes in the top 10% of his European country you know? Spread the word of his talent...
Im sure you have differences of opinion and all but to post insults about another member who hasnt even posted in this thread seems like a dick move to me
503
« on: February 16, 2011, 14:25 »
Any word on whether vlad_the_imp will be attending? There might be some poeple there that don't know how successful he is and this would be the perfect opportunity to inform them.
Real classy
504
« on: February 15, 2011, 13:20 »
This is really a discussion for independent photographers...obviously you would be against it if you were exclusive, and I am not sure why anyone is still exclusive, we've seen the numbers comparisons so many times and you just don't make more money as exclusive but thats another discussion, people seem to get emotionally entrenched in a stock site not sure why but if you simply look at your spread sheets you would make better decisions if you only took into account the numbers.
Replace "photographers" with artists or contributors and you will be more accurate in your statement. Im an exclusive and not entirely against driving buyers away from istock if it means in the long run that they will increase commission percentages to the artists. Where is the numbers comparisons that your talking about?? I somehow doubt this to be true now. I think some of the most talented are exclusive but that just my biased opinion  time is money for us
505
« on: February 14, 2011, 12:49 »
Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!
Brilliant. Divert traffic to smaller sites. And then they'll become one of the big sites. Oh wait a minute. The big sites are cutting commissions...
This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to me I treat them equally. as long as they learn.
We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.
Changed the color for emphasis. This is where the problem is really. There is too much supply and not enough demand and it looks to get worse. Agencies knows this and in istocks case, they are purely focusing on contributors with more talent than the rest. Everyone has talent to some extent. Early in micro years, anyone made money. Currently, you have to have a lot of talent to be successful or you should really get out of the game and stop whining about a couple of dollars a month you make less. When the money isnt there for the super talented, the game really is over. Business is all about profits and rarely cares for injustice.
506
« on: February 11, 2011, 21:57 »
me too, i was one of the lucky few who actually got a bump up. But i still think istock really robbed a lot of contributors. Most of the contributors joined and stuck w exclusitivity in the hopes of getting to the 40% one day.
507
« on: February 11, 2011, 21:48 »
Please google "Paypal" and "Problem" and you will find all you need...
You can google "anything" with "anything" and get numerous posts/websites agreeing with "anything". The key is to filter out most of that nonsense. The web is spreading stupidity faster than anything ever before as well as useful info.
508
« on: February 09, 2011, 17:53 »
I dont expect to earn a fortune through this, not even make a living some day. But I think that it is a good way to make a nice portfolio, which I could use to my clients too (I work as a graphic artist in very small projects for cafe's, hairdressers etc).
Thats a very good point. I create files i know i wont sell but would likely attract clients and i have gotten many clients from istock alone so that is definitely good exposure.
509
« on: February 09, 2011, 15:00 »
I think you could have gotten these in easy a couple of years ago on istock. definitely the fairy. These days the standards to get in are very high at istock. The best advice i can give you is to draw every day and keep learning/observing if you really want to get into istock. A good stock image has many uses.
Im sorry if that sounded harsh but thats the reality there. The problem really isnt with your artwork, its oversupply of really talented contributors. I see their portfolios and is amazed at their work. But a lot of the talented artists dont really do well either. They dont produce sellable stock. You can make all the pretty pictures in the world but ultimately, you want to profit from your work.
The cocktails perspective is not right with each other. why did you choose this perspective in the first place? As a designer, why would they download this image of yours as opposed to a straight on shot w a 3/4 view. if 100 designers were looking for cocktail drinks they needed to download, very few would need it at this awkward angle.
I like the fairy the best and i think its your strong point but im not a big fan of her straight arms. u did a nice job with her legs and i wished you would have bent her arms to make her flow more than so stiff. Im not a big fan of the ambiguous plant bgs and wished you really concentrated on those. Why didnt you make the snow go all over you image instead of just arounfd the fairy? Also, who will be buying this image? If you dont know, that is a problem. These are all things you will learn as you progress as an artist so i say keep drawing! Sorry for such an honest critique.
Im not even gonna talk about the donkey =D
510
« on: February 08, 2011, 12:15 »
^^ interesting blog... I didnt know about graphicriver. I wonder how long they have been around for. I still appreciate the higher prices at istock tho.
511
« on: February 08, 2011, 10:29 »
If your Illustrations are good enough for Istock and you sell well...why don't you grow up to Macro?
What macro agencies are there for illustrations? I know only very few, and it seems questionable whether they do better than iStock.
Thats what i was wondering... i honestly think the majority of the buyers migrated out of macro and into micro. Macros shooters follow the buyers and come into the micro agencies. Who needs to grow up anyways?
512
« on: February 07, 2011, 17:29 »
I always wondered about the amount of buyers there were outside of istock. As an istock exclusive at 35% commsions rate, i just cant see myself losing my crown to test the waters outside. The price difference is too drastic with other agencies. I avg $7-9 a download on istock. I doubt i can make that up if i spread my work around other agencies.
That and i dont believe in the subscriptions model like SS where it favors quantity over quality. Just take a look at some of the vector packs that are really good sellers on SS. they have over 50 items on one file which is just bad for everyone.
Dont even get me started on vector stock... I wish i was a hacker... what i would do w that site!
513
« on: February 03, 2011, 15:24 »
Of course they have the right. They pay the bills.
So when I pay the bills, I have the right to do whatever I want?
"Having the power" and "having the right" are not the same things!
Same or not, istock has both of those things on their own website. They have every right to decide what appears in the forums and what doesn't.
I've wondered why they even have a forum at all. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth. Nothing says they're required to have it.
If istock didnt have any forum, someone would make one up and then istock would have absolutely no control of what is said about their company on that forum. This is a crowd sourced business. And in business, like life, nothing is going to be fair or democratic. This forum, you can be childish all you want and make fun of other peoples age and job title without the fear of getting banned.
514
« on: February 01, 2011, 19:53 »
I will just make my point to see if people get it or not A car company invests millions of dollars on their product and when they advertise their product, they hire the most qualified photographers to take pictures of their product. Why would they let anyone with a camera who thinks he/she can make a couple of bucks selling their image on microstock sites with RF licenses. Lets say the car makers let their product be on micros. Do you really think your picture will come out better than the ones you see on tv or magazines? Maybe, but how many other crappy ones are gonna be out there making your product look cheap.
515
« on: January 31, 2011, 18:38 »
^^  . Im surprised you feel this way. Wouldnt you be pissed if some image thiefs stole your images and profitted off your images? You shouldnt profit from a product that not yours without specific permission from the copyright holder and if its cars were talking about, theres millions of dollars invested in that product.
516
« on: January 25, 2011, 21:17 »
So you think that 20% is not a drastic cut?
Well, it seems that most contributors are still carrying on as normal so no, it must not be. They'll keep cutting until they hit a main artery and then they'll start backing off to stop the bleeding a bit.
wasnt that what the reduced RC target levels were for?
517
« on: January 25, 2011, 19:47 »
just make it easy and say if you make more than this amount of money per week.. your in our "We know what the f we're talking about group" 
518
« on: January 24, 2011, 20:09 »
i dont think that they are that many of us... which is good for us that are in it early.
I don't understand why a small number of illustrators here at MSG would be "good" for us... there are certainly plenty out there on the stock sites competing against us. 
I have mostly vectors and a few rasters. No 3D or Flash.
My mistake... I was actually talking about the number of illustrators on stock sites contributing and not necessarily here on MSG. My only experience is at istock as an exclusive. Back in the day, there were very few. Most of the vectors i saw were done by designers and not illustrators. It was probably around 2 years ago when i started noticing more and more talented illustrators becoming contributors. While there seems like there is a lot of illustrators, i believe it isnt nearly as crowded as the photos side of stock imagery. I'm sure in three years, we will have 3 times more illustrators than we have now so thats what i mean it's good for us as the piece of the pie is still decent. Im sure the majority of photographers know about istock. I doubt a quarter of illustrators in the world know of istock.
519
« on: January 24, 2011, 15:14 »
i dont think that they are that many of us... which is good for us that are in it early.
520
« on: January 24, 2011, 15:13 »
^^ saw it.. still looks like a style anyone can do so im sure the other dudes not that pissed off since both looks are very un-original. But yeah... total copying of concept is so everywhere in microstock.
To the OP.. at least you made fingers. But got lazy and plopped the head onto the shoulders creating a distracting seam of sorts.
521
« on: January 24, 2011, 14:20 »
okay.... i haven't seen the OP link since its taken down. But why are we all so quick to call out foul to copying a style that so absurdly GENERIC and easy. That is the 3d equivalent to drawing stick figures to anyone that can actually draw for a living. Timing is crucial in this industry and the other guy with all those same 3d model is lucky to have his portfolio in when he did because im sure he isnt the first one with that style but maybe one of the earlier ones that got into microstock.
522
« on: January 24, 2011, 14:00 »
In my humble opinion Dreamstime belongs in this list too. The only downside is their 'similars issue'. (I've never been hurt by it much because i usually pick only 1 or 2 shots from a shoot (and the times i felt it wasnt fair i shot a message to support and it got reversed) so i am slightly biassed here).
Apart from that issue they have always been very transparent and open for our suggestions. They constantly are trying to improve their site for customers and contributors and i feel like i've always been treated very well and fair there. Their image level system (as far as i know) seems unique in the industry and works very well (level 4-5 images pay a good sum). imho they fit the 'fair category' well
yes I frequently receive sales in the $5 range for my level 4 or 5 images. Very smart to start raising prices on the images you know are selling well. I am surprised others haven't copied this model, an image with over 50 downloads will most certainly still be purchased for a few dollars more. This is a great way to increase profit for the agency as well as contributor. Simple idea but also one of the smartest ideas I have seen in microstock. Pay per popularity... this model has worked in many other industries throughout the history of free-market economies...it is called Supply and Demand....we all know it, but for some reason the internet does not put it to use very often....the more demand for an image the higher the price people are willing to pay.
That is a smart idea. Even smarter is the agency that introduces a plan with image exclusive rights that allow more of the commission to go to the contributor as the images get more downloads. Raise prices of the image, give more back to the contributor. They will in the end attract very talented artists and have images exclusive to their site. This agency will be at the top in no time i think.
523
« on: January 21, 2011, 12:08 »
Its been a bitch/rant fest on istock and here on msg since the sept announcement. Understandably so, but some people just go out of their way to repeat the same things over and over again to the point it gets irritating to sift through.
And if istock was my company, i would limit negative comments regarding the company myself on my forum too.
K... bitch/rant on
524
« on: January 20, 2011, 16:17 »
Given that they have mulltiple openings for App developers, it just seems like they have some incompetent IT staff. I would expect IT to be top priority for any company that deals in financial transactions online after maybe marketing. What else do they really need to do besides those two.
Maybe the top IT people from istock are still the same people who started with the company in its infancy and isnt qualified to oversee an operation the size of istock.
Posted sometime in nov. so im def not defending them but i dont think comparing what goes on at istock is the same as what happens on different sites like amazon or facebook. facebook employs (steals from google) the best geeks in the world.
525
« on: January 20, 2011, 13:55 »
Someone who knows more than me. Dose this happen because of carelessness or dose it just happen at times. I have never seen this
many problems on other sites so what makes iStock different?
Multiple choice:
a. They don't care
b. They haven't a clue how to make it better
c. They're testing our patience.
Actually, it's probably
d. All of the above.
I'm beginning to think that iStock, since September is just a giant experiment to see how much cr*p contributors and buyers will take before leaving. Nothing else. Just like the mice and the earth in H2G2.
Im in no way defending istock but we dont know the full story. e. I think somewhere along the lines of when their IT initially set the system up (wrote the code), it wasn't nearly as complicated as what they have now with all these new price differences, best match algorithm, linking between sites and lighboxes and such. Constantly adding new equations into the mix that the original code wasnt meant for is bound to have adverse effects. I just hope the site doesnt crash for more than a day. that would be devastating.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
