|
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
5076
« on: November 11, 2011, 20:24 »
I am sunk on IS DL's this week. I did have a couple of EL's but number of DL's overall this week is 5 average per day. I am typically 2-3 times more per day.
5077
« on: November 11, 2011, 20:21 »
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.
5078
« on: November 11, 2011, 20:16 »
Having a better than average month at IS, DT & SS, complete fecal fest at BS, 123, CS and SF. Had about 500 in Alamy so far before my 60% cut.
5079
« on: November 10, 2011, 19:23 »
And the point is?
The point is that it is interesting information and he took the time to share it with us. Must every single post for you be a smoking gun?
5080
« on: November 10, 2011, 19:09 »
Just one almost kill me on a "sub agency": "Too amauter"  Not many (Americans) know how to spell "amateur" right. They are even too dumb to use a spell-checker.
I know how to spell immature and you fit that bill pretty well.
5081
« on: November 05, 2011, 19:29 »
I am thinking really? A week went by and no one responds to me about removing my images?? All the other companies responded to me in some way by the 3rd day. I have messaged them twice.
Why do I have to go through my images myself and remove them individually? Really??? At this rate I will get them all off before they respond to me.
PLUS.. they had some as free images but was when they had it as the 18 months deal not 5 years.. I better get ALL my images off... because the 18 months was up along time ago.
Why are you leaving? I noticed that you have no images on any of the other sites.
5082
« on: November 01, 2011, 07:28 »
I've purchased hundreds of images through Dreamstime and the process was simple, easy to understand and instant. Perhaps you misunderstood their number of credit as they relate to image size?
5083
« on: October 30, 2011, 16:42 »
This is the first time I haven't reach a monthly payout with iStock since July 2006. My October sales have dropped 68% from my September sales. The last time my iStock monthly sales were that low was February 2006. In 2009 iStock was my number one in sale revenue. In 2010 it felt to number 2. Last September it felt to number 3. Now it is number 6. All other sites above IS, which are Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime, Bigstock, Canstock have all reached their regular monthly payouts and they all have given me better revenue then iStock. Furthermore, sales at those better sites appear to have increased to compensate for the lost at IS.
Your port is really nice. But it doesn't surprise me, not because of your port, but because of the many factors that control you, the contributor, from being successful.
5084
« on: October 30, 2011, 16:35 »
Con grats. Alamy is few and far between in payouts for me.
5085
« on: October 30, 2011, 16:29 »
Actually It depends on the reason your downsizing. If someone just said do it That Isin't a reason. Are they soft,Noise,Etc? OOF is OOF All you wind up with is a smaller OOF Image, If ya wanna hide noise? Thats a different Issue I would suggest learning Exposure as Noise is based on Exposure or a crappy camera or sensor. If a buyer DL's your Image in a Xlarge version there gonna want there money back. I personally think 3400/3600 longest side is as far down as you should go. Thats about 10 MP's. Getting your work accepted is relatively easy as compared to having work that sells. I also think sites like SS should raise the Minimum MP's to at least 8 now. Most consumer cameras now are in the 16/18 MP range. It's not 2005 anymore.
^^Exactly. If you have to reduce your image size to get them accepted because you can't get it right in the camera, that is an improvement opportunity you must work on. But, hey, if it gets you accepted go for it. On SS you don't get paid for image size so if that is the way you can sell stuff there, then go for it. By the way, I submit the highest REZ I can to all sites even though, like SS, they don't pay by size. I do this because in the off chance SS is sold, there may be a new model implemented that considers image size as a factor of commissions. I don't want to have to reup thousands of images. Just sayin.
5086
« on: October 30, 2011, 08:05 »
How does PD stack up against Canstock overall?
5087
« on: October 29, 2011, 18:41 »
A few days ago, I uploaded 42 photos to the site. Today, 38 of these images were rejected, mainly due to the fact that the inspector believes the images require a property release.
All of these images were captured from a public waterway.....none of them were captured from private property.
All of these images were accepted on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Bigstockphoto, Canstockphoto, Depositphotos, Featurepics, Panthermedia, Pixmac and Yamicro. A number of them were also accepted on Fotolia and Zoonar, and any that were rejected, weren't rejected for this reason.
Is 123RF doing the right thing in rejecting these images, or have all the other sites done the wrong thing in accepting them?
If 123RF believes they've done the right think in rejecting these images on the basis or requiring a property release, they'd better go right through my portfolio and delete many, many of my images that they've previously accepted.
I had a rejection for property release on 123 when the image was a staged prop set up, and it was a tight shot too. The rejection was so comical that I didn't bother to re-submit.
5088
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:18 »
Hi!
First of all, my apologies if this has been covered before. Did a search but couldnt find...
Am struggling with getting my first batch of 4 images approved by Alamy. Have had three batches with Failed QC. I think that my first two batches failed cause the connection got cut and i didnt upload my 4 images fully. There is no explanation as to why my first batches were rejected, only image processing error stated next to one of the images.
My third batch had an explanation for Failed QC. One of the images was soft or lacking definition. The other three has no motivation as to why they have Failed QC. I am guessing they have failed by default as one image was soft or lacking definition. My question is: shall i take my chanses and reload the three that 'only' are Failed QC and then add another image to the mix? Or should i submit four completelly new images?
Thanks in advance
Anne
It doesn't matter if the other images were awesome. If one within a submitted batch fails the whole batch is rejected. So if you think that the other three are good, then find a different fourth one and re-up. Just keep in mind the way they inspect. They don't check every image, they spot check. Because of this they make a broad brush assumption that one or more of the rest of the batch is bad too. If/when you get accepted, be careful how many you upload. If you upload 100 and one of the inspected images is bad, all will be rejected and you'll have to upload all of them again once the image corrections/deletions are made. You have to make the call on what image failed and take the risk for reuploading the ones you think are good. To eliminate any doubt, upload four different ones. Make sure you are viewing them at 100% and using a calibrated monitor. By the way I have found that most sites are more critical of images that don't POP in color and contrast...i.e. Istocks flat, dull rejections. On many of my images I now use low percentage of a high pass filter for sharpness and contrast because it is non destructive and I can turn it off within an image if I want. Make sure your images are sharp and eye catching. Good luck.
5089
« on: October 28, 2011, 19:15 »
And since there's no "democracy" on today's agencies anyway and they're cutting royalties at will, they could also start deleting all the cr@ap at will, IMO 75% of the content should be deleted. What did sell before 2008 doesn't necessarily (usually!) sell today and all that BS isolated on white still life/portraits, tens of thousands of images of grand canyon should be gone. And all the numerous similars and also the new cr@ppy stuff. It would benefit all of us, but mostly agencies.
Slovenian, I doubt your portfolio makes even a fraction of what this guy
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=996128
do with his "BS isolated on white still life"
I doubt you can make pictures at his level.
Most of that stuff isn't isolated.
5090
« on: October 23, 2011, 19:41 »
Actually I think Alamy fails in not allowing us to add license information from other sites (hmm, maybe we can in that area in which we set restrictions). In MyLoupe, this is more clear.
If you license an image directly to a buyer in which he requests exclusivity for, say, one year in Europe, the image can still be licensed to other places during that period. If you ever sold that image as RF before, however, you can never license an image that way because you can not guarantee anything. Also if you sell as RF during that period, you are not being fair with the RM license buyer.
Of course, if an image has never sold as RM or RF yet, it is irrelevant, but you should remove it from RF once it has sold as RM or vice-versa. That's what I do.
Well said, but what you are saying is that you will monitor your images that haven't sold, and when one does sell as either RF or RM you will go delete all the conflicts?
5091
« on: October 22, 2011, 08:07 »
October is on track to be my worst month on istock in 5 years (since December 2006). That's pretty pathetic to say the least.
I just wanted to chime in and second what nico said here. I'm not nearly as big a fish and this last week has been abysmal. Some of the worst regular business days for sales I've had since 2007 at least (not including holiday weeks/days).
This is an amazing transition for me. 15 a day average to, well, yesterday, 3, day before 4, last few weeks 5-7 a day max. That's a 50-75% drop in DL's. Istock is my number three in workflow now behind SS and DT.
5092
« on: October 22, 2011, 07:53 »
The smallest size I will submit to Alamy is 3604x2403. Not sure if that helps you but it's 8.66 megapixel.
thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?
If the images you upload are also on MS, then you MUST license them as RF. If they are only on RM sites then you can license them RM.
Hey don't blame me folks I didn't open this 
Alamy says NO. (don't do it) the other sites say NO, the legal implications say NO, my sense of integrity says No... but I know some people here say, No Problem. 
I agree with RacePhoto. I am not a lawyer but I would be concerned about a couple of things even if, technically, you could license an image both with RF & and RM licenses. 1. Get ready to be sued. ( http://asmp.org/articles/rights-managed-stock-vs-royalty-free-stock.html). This ASMP piece on licensing clearly states why a purchaser of an RM image could sue you. They have a RM reason...there are specific rights and expectations when you purchase an RM image. 2. Simply put if the sites say don't do it, then you risk having your account closed if/when they find out. I wouldn't take that risk as the income I get helps pay my bills and beer tab.
5093
« on: October 21, 2011, 21:52 »
That's what I was afraid of. And no-one seems to be getting replies from support these days either. AND it's the weekend... At least it's not the last day of the month. I would hope that they would send a response to e-mail if a password was changed though.
Edit to add THANKS FOR CHECKIN MANTIS, my bad manners!
No worries.
5094
« on: October 21, 2011, 21:14 »
Just logged in. No problems.
5095
« on: October 21, 2011, 20:33 »
any images I would license on Alamy would not be anywhere else. they would be editorial that iStock won't accept and that I'm not sending to news wires. if Alamy's new breaking news format seems to work well, I might even supply there instead of elsewhere. but I'd never supply the same content as RM if it is already sold as RF. my sense of integrity wouldn't allow me to do something like this either.
iStock's exclusivity contract won't let us license anything as RF, no matter what it is. even if it isn't admissible on iStock. so I'm looking for a cozy home for my unpublished editorial images as RM.
I know about all that above stuff, but your work should do very well under non-RF terms, including editorial. Have fun with it.
5096
« on: October 21, 2011, 20:15 »
5097
« on: October 21, 2011, 20:14 »
The smallest size I will submit to Alamy is 3604x2403. Not sure if that helps you but it's 8.66 megapixel.
thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?
If the images you upload are also on MS, then you MUST license them as RF. If they are only on RM sites then you can license them RM. This is the quandary. You pick the license you want to use with each upload. But if your pics are on microstock then you are obligated to license them as RF or hope you don't get caught licensing them as RM, if that floats your boat.
5098
« on: October 21, 2011, 20:05 »
The smallest size I will submit to Alamy is 3604x2403. Not sure if that helps you but it's 8.66 megapixel.
thanks. on another submission topic, I read that I can designate RM licenses only on Alamy when I upload. is this correct?
If the images you upload are also on MS, then you MUST license them as RF. If they are only on RM sites then you can license them RM.
5099
« on: October 21, 2011, 18:42 »
Kill Bill, volume IV.
5100
« on: October 21, 2011, 18:41 »
thanks everyone. glad it wasn't just me being a twit. appreciate the info. so if my pixel dimension number is 54.6....is that large enough? I shoot Nikon D3X
Ha..twice as much 
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
