|
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 - Jo Ann Snover
5051
« on: November 13, 2012, 20:39 »
... Imagine if it was all working properly...
That was called 2010  Before they went mad and demolished what they'd built up, to replace it with what we have now...
5052
« on: November 13, 2012, 19:28 »
I would guess that if DB updates aren't happening the slots wouldn't update either
5053
« on: November 13, 2012, 17:29 »
It's possible they think it's working as they intended it to - a case of we see a bug and they see a feature. Not arguing that it's good, but possibly that it's intentional.
Looking at a series of mine where some rather odd things happen on a best match search if you add a term to refine the search, it appears that the ranking of the newly added term in the keywords of the image affect placement. So, for one of your popular sand images with flip flops, copy space is lower down in the rankings for that image, so that probably accounts for positioning.
I would argue that if I'm refining something - in other words I got into the right ballpark with beach - I might not get the best results if the additional terms are ordered by overall ranking. But I think that's what they've done
5054
« on: November 13, 2012, 17:14 »
It does say minimum 10, but I can see six sets in your Galleries tab. It may just be that you need to reload the page?
5055
« on: November 13, 2012, 17:01 »
You're here. I have bookmarked mine because I can find it via a Google search or clicking on my name if I'm on an image's page (what the customer sees). What I don't see is a link from the contributor home page, which I think they should have. If you click your gallery from the contributor home page you go to the page without the galleries.
5056
« on: November 13, 2012, 16:47 »
When I add more images I get more slots. I don't think they evaluate your port to see if you deserve a higher percentage - but you could ask contributor relations to do that. Worst they can do is say no...
5057
« on: November 13, 2012, 16:46 »
Go to Public Information from the menu under your name (top right of the contributor page). On that page you can reorder the galleries, then click Save Profile
5058
« on: November 13, 2012, 12:24 »
So this note about royalties will feel a little upside down compared to most. Today I checked my sales and among them were two XL images, one of which had a $1.20 royalty and the other $6.50
XL is 4 credits, so is it really the case that a buyer paid $3.25 a credit? I did double check that the "Downloads" column showed only one sale today for that image - it isn't multiple royalties added together. I can contact support, but thought I'd see if there's some sort of partner deal I don't know about that pays more than the typical amounts.
5059
« on: November 13, 2012, 10:45 »
I have my payment. As it was a US holiday (for some) yesterday I didn't worry about no payment. Just assumed IS had the day off
It is beyond silly that they can't get out in front of these types of things-they've heard over and over how important we think it is...
5060
« on: November 12, 2012, 19:06 »
my thoughts too.
Looked at your sets. All I can offer is envy. 
I looked at your sets, and I think my feedback would be to break things down a bit more to avoid too many unrelated images in a group. So in the Travel & Tourism section, for example, you have a ton of pictures of people racing dirt bikes, some vintage cars, some food, some isolated flowers, etc. Even if you had to travel to get the bluebonnet pictures, I don't think I expect to see isolated flowers in that section. I'm trying to decide if I should set a maximum on how many images I put in a set. The thinking is that if it gets too big, no one's going to look at the last pages, so we're better off to keep it to one or two.
5061
« on: November 12, 2012, 18:27 »
I really don't want to mix SS up with my personal facebook and I don't have a "business" one that's separate. I do have Linked In and Twitter, but I've never seen any point in using them for business purposes (and I know every business on the planet thinks that this is the hot thing, but I'm not convinced you do anything but piss people off  That's a long way of saying "No"
5062
« on: November 12, 2012, 17:59 »
Too bad they didn't do this years ago when I had relatively few files, instead of now when I have to organize over 7k images if I am going to benefit from this feature...
It's a lot easier to organize given that you can search in the catalog manager interface and then select everything from that search to add to a set. Give it a try with some top categories (senior couple, gorgeous husband...) to see - even if you only do 10 sets you'll get some boost from a nice portfolio page with galleries. It's tons better in that respect than iStock's interface...
5063
« on: November 12, 2012, 16:36 »
Not gone - at least for me, here.
I can still see it too
5064
« on: November 12, 2012, 13:45 »
Anyone else want to show how they've chosen galleries? It's not really pimping as there aren't any buyers here, but I'd be happy to comment on other people's choices to make suggestions if others want to do the same. Here's my gallery set. I figured I'd move the order around seasonally, as sales indicate.
5065
« on: November 12, 2012, 11:09 »
That's pretty brazen! And I wouldn't dream of downloading my own images from them (and the thumbs are there, albeit with rather old fashioned looking rounded corners) but what would happen if I did? Do they have the XXXL image to sell me for $8 or is it some upsized thumb? And if they have the full size files, how did they get them, I wonder?
5066
« on: November 11, 2012, 23:44 »
Have you shared your portfolio - I don't see it in your posts. Depending on what type of work you're doing, time consuming post processing might be fine or might be something you need to learn to speed up. Hard to say without knowing what you do.
I have a number of composites and HDR shots. Those take a while to process but when I do a good job, the images can sell well and make it worth it. Retouching shots of people can be an important stepIf I was taking that amount of time on
If you were submitting 20 images a week (roughly 1K a year) and getting almost all of those accepted and a good fraction of those were decent sellers, you'd be doing pretty well for someone doing this (a) alone and (b) in addition to a day job.
5067
« on: November 11, 2012, 17:43 »
The front page didn't say those companies bought the images from Pocketstock, just bought "our" images. My guess would be the images were purchased through other channels as the founder has been around stock photography for a while. I'm also guessing those "package" prices are an attempt to get buyers. But 63 cents each for images (of which I get 25 cents) doesn't appeal to me much.
CanStock without the volume (and yes, I am joking) is where that ends up
5068
« on: November 11, 2012, 17:36 »
Welcome.
If you're new to microstock, does that mean you're selling your images somewhere? You can put in portfolio links as part of your profile so people here can see what you're selling.
5069
« on: November 10, 2012, 10:24 »
Couple of thoughts. You could choose to fight on principle - I am entitled to use your product as an insignificant prop in an image that is about something else - or on the details - those aren't your glasses. I would have someone start scouring all the cheap places that sell knock-off products with no brand names that are designed to look like famous stuff. I'm assuming if this type of eyewear is popular (like Sarah Palin's glasses) then there'll be plenty of cheap imitations available. If your lawyers had 10 examples of glasses that were just like the brand name ones to show their lawyers and asked them how they planned to prove that the glasses in your images had the brand name items in them, perhaps they'd decide this was not worth their time. Of course you would want to remove all references from the web that admitted you had used the designer glasses if you wanted to pursue this approach And, I'd insist on using cheap knockoff eyeglasses in all future shoots, not the model's own expensive stuff
5070
« on: November 10, 2012, 09:53 »
Having only 127 photos on 123RF , the decision is simple:
Stop uploading there, portfolio will stay at 127 photos forever.
I just don't like being treated like that!
I haven't uploaded there since they announced this scheme. I continue to earn from what I've already uploaded (which is a nice sign) but to the extent that they sell subscriptions, they need new content to keep continuing subscribers happy. 123rf is a small enough agency that I think it's possible we could - if enough people wanted to pressure them - change their mind by withholding new content from them. All the other agencies will have new content they won't have. Subscribers would be less likely to renew. We get to make reasonable money from what we've already uploaded, at least for a while.
5071
« on: November 10, 2012, 09:49 »
It's November 10th and I'm pleased, if somewhat surprised, to see the PP sales for October start to get added to my balance this morning. How nice to see something happening there in a timely manner
5072
« on: November 09, 2012, 23:33 »
I see lots of stock photos in print, but the magazines are smaller, niche or freebie items, not the big newstand items.
Examples that come to mind from things I've found: Magazine for our town; magazine from the water district; when away, the "what to do magazines" that are given away in restaurants and hotels. The Teaching Company (they sell courses) catalogs. The giveaways on airplanes, trade rags circulated within an industry (insurance, dentistry, etc.). Magazine-like work from local marine protection agencies. Giveaway home decorating ideas magazines - decorating the small apartment sort of thing. I have seen stock images in Science magazine, Scientific American, the New York Times.
5073
« on: November 09, 2012, 11:26 »
As noted above, you need to take pictures of different things, not take better pictures of the same things.
You don't have to shoot models to make this work; you don't need much gear. I'm not a superstar, but getting many more downloads relative to my portfolio size than you are. I would say if I can do it so can you. Perhaps the only other difference in my case is more post processing to get a bit more pizzaz into the finished product. But you can learn to do that too if you want to.
5074
« on: November 09, 2012, 11:19 »
The Welsh word twp - pronounced like book - means stupid. I would pronounce TWOP the same way - not a great idea for an acronym IMO I had to do a google search to find the agency web site here. Might have been helpful if you provided a link I see your pitch in this line from the web site "- Quicker, less expensive, and more up to date than other photo agencies -" Looking at the images, it reminds me of iStock or Shutterstock in 2004 - the images aren't all that great. Getting images to the site quickly is fine if they're newsworthy or time sensitive, but otherwise, you've just got a rather odd collection. Reminds me a bit of Photocase and I never could figure their aesthetic out. Given the types of images you're after, what do you think photographers here - who contribute to the existing agencies - might be able to offer your agency? And given your goal to be fast and cheap, what can you offer us - and don't include 50% in your answer. 50% x 0 is 0 so talk about how you're bringing buyers to your agency.
5075
« on: November 08, 2012, 21:13 »
We should just view this as a rubber room where people can come and vent about the insanity - great community service MSG can offer My observations are that title and keyword variations do not allow one to avoid the similars police.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
