|
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 - Mantis
5051
« on: November 21, 2011, 18:11 »
I hate to rejoice in anyone's demise. But they deserve it.  On the other hand, if they fess up for being tyrannical, then they deserve a second chance.
After they disappear, let's hope their reviewers don't get jobs at SS, 123RF, etc. Maybe we can be the reviewers and reject all their work as "not suitable for stock."
Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...
IS in trouble.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/
I would take Istock's inspectors any day over Shutterstock's, or at least the Istock rules for image acceptance. If you were able to purge from Shutterstock what Istock would normally reject they could clean up their collection, have more salable product, and actually have a system where photographers are encouraged to upload.
5052
« on: November 20, 2011, 12:39 »
gostwyk,
I make these comments for very good reason and based not on just my experiences. Shutterstock turns a blind eye to experienced photographers who know what they're doing. When I shoot I conduct research then set up the shoot around that research. I am not just snapshooting away and hoping what I shoot will sell. Then there is the work that goes into prep and submissions. So LCV rejections begin. The photographer (including me, among other very active contributors) try to share with SS WHY these images are salable and not LCV. Here are ways I personally have used to try to educate the ding dong inspectors at SS.
Stats of the same Images from other sites...as Joanne stated earlier. I have shared data with them from IS, Alamy and DT showing that the very images they claiming to be LCV are in fact researched and selling elsewhere. The response is all rejected for LCV.
Sometimes I am extending a successful series, explain to them what that series is, reference image numbers to show actual salability on their own site and they get rejected for LCV.
Other times I point out how my submissions are adding to gaps within their own collection and that they are fresh, new content, not versions of a bazillion other "apple" shots. Rejected for LCV.
Now you are probably in the minority of contributors who may not experience a lot of LCV but the bulk of contributors I speak with who are perhaps in the top 25 percent of all contributors in terms of quality content and volume are getting slammed with LCV rejections.
So I make my statement based on that very anorexic ear the SS peeps have in terms of listening and hearing what their experienced contributors have to say about their revenue killing inspection standards. Yes, they ARE leaving money on the table, both for SS and the contributor.
I am personally okay with rejections but when I can quantify or strongly qualify the value of an image set and it goes in one ear and out the other, that tells me a lot about a huge gap in their system and that they could care less about what constructive feedback contributors offer.
I have a higher than 90 percent acceptance on IS so I know it's not quality or composition. Funny that the last batch they rejected (90% rejection) had sales within days at DT, IS and Alamy. So that in and of itself proves them wrong.
So in a nutshell, that is why I say what I say and I stand by my comments. Don't get me wrong, though. I am speaking specifically about their inspection standards as an opportunity for serious, fair improvement. The rest of the company seems pretty solid short of seeing their financials.
5053
« on: November 20, 2011, 10:29 »
5054
« on: November 20, 2011, 09:47 »
[/quote]
To me, SS is leaving good money on the table by trying to guess what designers want and don't want. But as you say, each agency has its hot buttons and they are all trying to keep their swelling databases under control, so in most cases, I'll just move on.
[/quote]
This is completely accurate. They are leaving money on the table and have inspectors that make unfounded judgement calls one salability. This is the one are where SS sucks. They also do not listen to contributors, rather ignoring them is something they perceive as value added.m just because they are currently at the top, or close to it, doesn't mean they don't have significant room to become the king of micro. Their whole inspection process is so poor that uploading there is an honest crap shoot, a gamble that is a result of their unwillingness to bring fairness and commercial realism to their inspection process. They are by far the most shameful agency in this regard.
5055
« on: November 19, 2011, 08:21 »
Right. Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell. Oringer is a businessman, too.
Wrong. Livingstone bottled it and sold out way, way too early. Oringer is 10x the businessman that Livingstone was (and is quite possibly 100x wealthier too). Brucie-babe sold out for just $50M. I reckon you'd need to pony-up close to $1B before you could even begin discussions to buy SS/BigStock.
My point is still valid regardless. You may be right in your thoughts tho.
5056
« on: November 18, 2011, 20:16 »
Don't believe the hype! Every business has a botton line and that is to keep themselves sustainable once they are established. They will do what it takes to keep themselves sustainable. That's just business!
Right. Remember the Bruce from IS? Times were right and ripe to sell. Oringer is a businessman, too.
5057
« on: November 16, 2011, 19:17 »
+1
I log into FT only once month to record my monthly sales in a spreadsheet. Other than that I use the emails from sales to gauge where I am. Same with DP.
5058
« on: November 16, 2011, 18:09 »
thats a new one on IS 
I had like 30 files approved already with those releases and they do have description, why is this week different?
I really dont understand, reviewers dont look into our portfolio?
need to have a lot of paTience :/
This has happened to me a few times. I just contact support and they always fix it and accept the images.
5059
« on: November 16, 2011, 17:27 »
Has anyone submitted images with titles that are not caps for the first letter of each word? I would also wonder what happens if I have more than 30 keywords. Does it kick the image back to me or truncate the first 30? I can tell you, if the title thing is a stickler, I am not going back to change 3,000 image titles. My titles are like: Cup of hot chocolate, not Cup Of Hot Chocolate. I don't actually have any shots of hot chocolate but just sayin.
My titles are like yours (First letter capitalised only), and were accepted. The same for keywords: I had pictures accepted with up to at least 40 keywords, they don't even truncate the first 30. They don't accept numbers in keywords though.
Looks more like a guideline than a rule.
Thank you. Appreciate the feedback.
5060
« on: November 15, 2011, 17:14 »
Has anyone submitted images with titles that are not caps for the first letter of each word? I would also wonder what happens if I have more than 30 keywords. Does it kick the image back to me or truncate the first 30? I can tell you, if the title thing is a stickler, I am not going back to change 3,000 image titles. My titles are like: Cup of hot chocolate, not Cup Of Hot Chocolate. I don't actually have any shots of hot chocolate but just sayin.
5061
« on: November 14, 2011, 16:50 »
I don 't shoot video, but I am very happy for those who do. And of course increased royalties are a welcome sign for the industry as a whole. It's good to see SS taking such a different approach to some of their competitors.
Next up? Photogs & Illustrators perhaps? What a perfect storm that would create.
5062
« on: November 13, 2011, 19:23 »
LOL... hardly. But that gives me an idea for Halloween. 
LOL that is funny.
5063
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:36 »
The new 70-300 L ( white one), is brillant. with closest focals at 1.2, meters. I find myself using this one more then the 70-200L.IS.2.8.
comparatively speaking, I prefer the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 D series, it shoots beautifully and it's more substantial than the new fx lenses. clean, nice bokeh, and less expensive since it's older
This is a good point. The bokeh on some lenses just sucks. Opt for quality, not price.
5064
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:33 »
Part Two Votes Cast November 2011
300 votes DT
294 votes SS
294 votes FT
275 votes IS
275 votes 123RF
260 votes BigStock
250 votes CS
177 votes DP
58 votes PD
49 votes P5
49 votes Veer
26 votes COf
Says something about how popular some sites are? Not much about sales or profits. 
This is true. My metrics don't necessarily line up with what MSG shows, so there are inherent differences probably based on portfolio type, quantity, quality, and N where N=data points being measured.
5065
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:27 »
We used to use Istock a lot, especially for their interior home shots. But now we use SS as primary and DT secondarily.
5066
« on: November 13, 2011, 17:21 »
I may have taken a wrong turn. Modeling seems to be my niche. Just submitted 5 pictures of myself and 4 were accepted. Didn't even have to convince myself to sign a release. 
Time to join the "People Picture" crowd. 
Bikini?
5067
« on: November 13, 2011, 11:11 »
This may have been discussed earlier but I could not find an answer (on MSG) with search.
Am I supposed to attach a picture of the model to the release before scanning to a JPG file?
Best to do it that way.
5068
« on: November 13, 2011, 09:51 »
What do we think of this womans work. she sells out and also sells out her books.
http://www.susanmikula.com/
They look like frames from surveillance video.
5069
« on: November 13, 2011, 09:25 »
I rejoined after dumping them 2 years ago. sent 1500 known sellers. 400 were rejected for above reasons which was total BS. I contacted [email protected] and they took care of it and he seems like a nice understanding Guy. I don't know what reviewing team they have or who they want but some are obviously WAY Off Base. They are NOT a top 4 site in any real poll. And Who votes here Im sorry to say doesn't hold to much weight. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves. I hope they come back, It an easy upload process but there staff needs some schooling in Lighting and commercial value.
So do SS inspectors.
5070
« on: November 12, 2011, 20:18 »
Another thing i don't understand is, how i can attach the correct model releases after uploading with ftp???
place the release(s) on the moldel_release folder, then place the pictures on the previous folder, they will go automatically to those files (after you click on process)
I am still trying to figure out that mess at 123. They have a very un-user-friendly system because you have to leave one page to get to the model release page.
I dont find it confusing, at 123RF you just upload your pictures, then on the website the releases and attach to them, if you do it after the FTP processing those will be the only pics there which will be easier
When you process FTP, you have to do that on a completely different page with no navigation buttons to the releases, so you have to type in a whole new URL to get to the release folder, that's what I am talking about.
true but I dont find it difficult or confusing
It's not difficult or confusing, just unproductive and EASILY FIXABLE. As often as I bring this up, Alex or some other admin 123 chimes in here and tells me how wrong I am or how I am not getting it. All you've done is confirm what I have been saying. A little nav button and all is cool.
5071
« on: November 12, 2011, 20:13 »
Another thing i don't understand is, how i can attach the correct model releases after uploading with ftp???
place the release(s) on the moldel_release folder, then place the pictures on the previous folder, they will go automatically to those files (after you click on process)
I am still trying to figure out that mess at 123. They have a very un-user-friendly system because you have to leave one page to get to the model release page.
I dont find it confusing, at 123RF you just upload your pictures, then on the website the releases and attach to them, if you do it after the FTP processing those will be the only pics there which will be easier
When you process FTP, you have to do that on a completely different page with no navigation buttons to the releases, so you have to type in a whole new URL to get to the release folder, that's what I am talking about.
true but I dont find it difficult or confusing
It's not difficult or confusing, just unproductive and EASILY FIXABLE.
5072
« on: November 12, 2011, 13:12 »
Good stuff. I really like the pic where the guy is wearing a New York Yankees hat
5073
« on: November 12, 2011, 09:37 »
it looks like that now I am the bad guy, sure not a problem 24 or 27 I can handle it
BUT as I said, I was called a nobody before
No youre not! your OK! but as they say, you have to be a bit self centered, a bit crazy, how else could you possibly survive ? in actual fact you have to be nuts to even think of becoming a photographer in the first place.
Sounds like the lyrics of a new country song
5074
« on: November 12, 2011, 09:30 »
My best seller hasn't sold for 4 days now. Not even once!!! My sales are so low that I am selliing about the same as my best seller used to sell daily.
I've now been hit hard by both Fotolia and Istock.
Something is creepy about FT for me. I have gone from a rank of about 1000 to 2000. It hasn't returned to 1000. Sales have plummeted in the last two months there....for me anyhow.
5075
« on: November 12, 2011, 09:23 »
Another thing i don't understand is, how i can attach the correct model releases after uploading with ftp???
place the release(s) on the moldel_release folder, then place the pictures on the previous folder, they will go automatically to those files (after you click on process)
I am still trying to figure out that mess at 123. They have a very un-user-friendly system because you have to leave one page to get to the model release page.
I dont find it confusing, at 123RF you just upload your pictures, then on the website the releases and attach to them, if you do it after the FTP processing those will be the only pics there which will be easier
When you process FTP, you have to do that on a completely different page with no navigation buttons to the releases, so you have to type in a whole new URL to get to the release folder, that's what I am talking about.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
