|
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 - Gannet77
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24
526
« on: June 05, 2009, 13:04 »
I know FOR SURE it's like that at the corporate level. The credit card company takes the loss. After all, a credit transaction is each given an "OK" by the card issuer. At that point in time, the money goes to the company. The company is paying anywhere from a 0.5% to 5.0 % transaction fee (based on sales volume,etc. for the right to accept credit cards. Heck, there's not a company in America that's being asked to refund money for credit card fraud.
... No way the company took the hit.
I'm not sure about this. When the card is 'verified' at the point of purchase maybe all that is being checked is that the card is valid and that there are sufficient funds for the transaction. The owner of the card may not yet have reported it stolen and also the card may have been 'cloned' (happens a lot at gas stations where I live).
There's no way that DT for example would be making these deductions if they weren't suffering a loss.
In the UK the police seem to have a very strange attitude to credit card fraud. My brother was recently contacted by his bank (who were also the card issuer) regarding suspicious activity on his card. When he confirmed that several transactions were nothing to do with him he was eventually refunded by the bank. Some of the transactions were for goods bought over the internet and delivered to addresses in the UK __ so presumably easily traceable. However when he tried to report it to the police they weren't interested at all and even refused to record the event or issue a 'crime number'. As far as they were concerned he wasn't the victim of the crime (because he had been reimbursed by the bank) and therefore they wouldn't accept his complaint.
But even if the card holder had not reported it stolen, that's between the card holder and the card issuer, not the retailer. As for the thing about the police - well, that's true really, there is no reason why the police should be concerned with your brother, he has lost nothing and it's the bank that has suffered the loss, and presumably has all the details. Unless the card was actually stolen from him perhaps.
527
« on: June 05, 2009, 11:23 »
Don't get me wrong - I am upset by these issues also, but...
An artist hangs a canvas in a coffee shop and sells it on consignment - but later the coffee shop is dinged back because the credit card was stolen. The coffee shop did everything properly by verifying the card through their credit card terminal. Should the coffee shop take the loss or should the artist?
Neither - if the card was correctly verified, it's the card issuers responsibility, surely?
528
« on: June 05, 2009, 10:20 »
Personally I think it would be good to get rid of sort by downloads and showing of number of downloads. it would generate more creativity, stop so much copying, encourage buyers to delve deeper into the collection etc etc.
Bingo! ITLR it has been bad for the industry because now the databases are choked with too many similar images. Nobody wins when the sales in any area are spread too thin.
I just checked on istock, though, and I can still see the sales numbers. Can someone explain?
You can still see EXACT sales numbers? Not ">100", ">1000", etc.?
529
« on: June 05, 2009, 05:49 »
Much as I said in the forum - I liked the charts but I'm not surprised at this.
It made it easy to track total sales for all of iStock on a daily/monthly basis and that is information they have never released, and have said they won't, in the past.
530
« on: June 04, 2009, 18:28 »
Weeeee..... made it in first try. 2 of the shots I thought would be knocked out for being soft. Guess not. I am in the club now....lol.
Alamy QC you only on the first shot of the batch. This being the bona fide assumption that you submit only your best shots to Alamy, so they don't need to check on you for each and every image you submit.
That being said, if you knowingly upload a soft image or not up to par, you only cheat yourself as no one will buy it.
Congrats and welcome to the Alamy team 
According to Alamy's "Prepare Images" page ( http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography-guide.asp) they actually check ALL four images for your test submission, and "a sample" of each subsequent submission - so you can't rely on it being just the first shot of the batch. So congrats and welcome, you passed!
531
« on: June 03, 2009, 06:53 »
When I first read the note last night I thought it was saying that opting in would automatically sweep all the eligible files into the other sites. When I realized that wasn't the case, I did go through and opt a few in. They are files that were reactivated from dollar bin, or that I had at one time deactivated myself because they were total crap and not up to par with the slightly less crappy work that's in my portfolio now.
I did remove these particular images from istock though. I don't think I want them in both places at the same time. For those who opted in, did you leave your files on istock as well?
At the moment, yes, I have opted to leave them on iStock too. My opinion is that iStock shouldn't be offering that option - since they are though, I feel I'd be a fool not to take it. It's an issue I may revisit later. There are two months yet before this thing goes live, and we can change this for individual files anytime before or after that.
532
« on: June 03, 2009, 05:07 »
I'm glad someone here is opted in. Hopefully you'll keep us posted on how it's working out for you overall?
I'm opted in too!
533
« on: May 29, 2009, 07:09 »
Certainly I never noticed any obvious bump in sales upon going exclusive - as you can upload more you may increase downloads as a result of building your portfolio faster, but just for being exclusive, I don't think you should expect that. Over time it may be so, as iStock do say they will promote exclusives, but as an immediate increase, no. Maybe others have different experiences though.
As for best match placement, as Michael says, you shouldn't consider that as a reason, it may be so sometimes but it can change.
Nor am I convinced by the faster inspection = better placement argument; I think the age factor in the best match is based on the inspection date/time, not the upload date. I think that because, when I had two images uploaded at the same time, one went to "Pending Executive" and was thus delayed before being accepted, but when it did appear it was positioned well ahead of the other, which had been accepted a week or more earlier. But I don't know that for sure, it's just supposition.
535
« on: April 23, 2009, 08:54 »
I had a photo of the glass roof/ceiling of the British Museum removed from iStock last week, so this explains why. The same photo is still on some other agencies, which has happened before. I guess there has to be some disadvantages to being the top agency*.
*In this context I'm using "top agency" in reference to being the most well known to people such as the National Trust.
Er, no, the British Museum is not owned by the National Trust.
536
« on: April 18, 2009, 07:52 »
A "Good best match" is when that person finds HIS images in the top.
You've got it. My 'lesbian brides' are back, 4 shots, in the top 16 (after being nowhere a month ago). I can't help noticing that position 3 and 4 are taken by shots with zero downloads (the only ones like that on page 1) from an exclusive contributor. So it can't be view count (mine is 10x as high) nor downloads alone that do the trick. Would it be a wild guess that there is a tiny bias towards exclusives? 
Isn't it more likely that the ones with zero downloads (I assume you mean those rather odd ones with the gun) are ahead of yours because they're the more recent?
537
« on: April 17, 2009, 03:46 »
I did very well indeed yesterday - not quite BDE but close.
And very welcome, the last few weeks have been slow for me. Whether it's anything to do with BM2 though I cannot say.
538
« on: April 14, 2009, 05:22 »
To do so, you have to bring a polar bear from north pole to south pole and then take pictures of the bear eating penguins.
I think a polar bear under a palm tree with Palin serving cevapcici would sell much better.
Obviously the polar bears, penguins and Palin are well covered, I'm planning a shoot of the upcoming joint exercises between the Bhutanese Navy and the Costa Rican Army practising seaborne assaults in Bolivia.
539
« on: April 07, 2009, 05:22 »
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/requests.asp Here's one. Not location specific, but I don't think you'll get enough requests to make it interesting to go and check regularly for updates in your area.
I particularly liked request no. 8825 from last Wednesday... I think I'll see if I can get some of those...
540
« on: April 07, 2009, 05:15 »
For the initial submission, iStock don't require top technical quality (that comes later) - what they do like to see is three images of differing subjects, showing that you aren't just a snapshooter and you can create an image with some understanding of composition and lighting.
The most common reason they give for an initial rejection is usually that the subjects are too similar and they want to see more variety.
As you say you are returning to photography after some years, you likely have an eye for an image - don't let the initial rejection put you off, have another go!
To save a later post though, bear in mind that once your initial application is accepted, if you submit the same images for your portfolio they will be subject to more stringent examination and may be rejected on technical grounds.
541
« on: April 05, 2009, 14:37 »
OpenDNS categorizes it as having AdWare... I don't want to be on it!
542
« on: April 04, 2009, 07:17 »
Our photographer at my office has a Dell with a built-in card reader and he has had problems with it too, not the same model of Dell though I think... and we (I'm in the IT department) haven't been able to get a resolution from Dell either. A replacement reader was the same, and we suspect BIOS issues, but Dell don't seem to be admitting any such fault.
As for whether or not HP are better, we have used both and in our experience Dell has generally been more reliable - and their service has been better - but perhaps not in this case!
Sorry not to be able to offer any encouragement - I guess my suggestion would be an external reader!
Myself, I just plug the camera in directly, and it (Olympus E-510) seems to work at USB 2 speed for me. But then I rarely fill more than one card at a time.
543
« on: March 30, 2009, 07:17 »
Another happy Olympus user... E-510 in my case, bought based entirely on having had total satisfaction with the old OM line of film cameras. For the DSLRs, I like the size and I like the sensor cleaner, as I take mostly outdoor images and I'm not too careful when changing lenses; never yet had a problem with sensor spots.
I have used Canon film cameras in the past as well, AE-1 and A-1, and they were great too; I'm tempted by the 5D but it's a bit too expensive for me to justify changing systems now.
Speaking of Olympus DSLRs, has anyone seen this new E-620 in the wild?
544
« on: March 30, 2009, 05:49 »
iStock tends to start slow but sales continue for a long time, at least, that's my experience.
And you'll need a lot more images in your portfolio there to see regular downloads...
545
« on: March 28, 2009, 07:31 »
Four weeks? That's good, I had one took four months.
Recently though scout has been quicker - four weeks is about what my last request took I think.
But as said, it's not any effort, so you should put it in. What have you got to lose?
546
« on: March 26, 2009, 18:44 »
Good reading...
http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/
Position number 1000 on IS averages 20 downloads a month. Roughly $165 a year.
One photo sale on Alamy can easily earn that. Even with the discounted rates, three photo sales a year will equal that. The average RF license at Alamy in Q3 2007 was about $235, and the average commercial license was $393.
Both can be valuable, each with own marketing strategy, and different types of photos. Keep in mind that RM and editorial bring in bigger numbers at Alamy. RF in volume creates the sales at IS.
Read that chart again. Position number 1000 on IS averages 20 downloads a day, not a month... and it's a Gold Exclusive, that'll be more than you're calculating as income. I'd guess roughly $4,500 to $5000 a year as a conservative estimate, possibly more with the new prices. Edited to add: Actually even that estimate is way too low. I averaged $1.32 per download on IS last year, and I'm Silver. A Gold, on the same basis, would average $1.60 per download, for 20 downloads that's $32 per day or getting on for $10,000 a year. Your mileage may vary.
547
« on: March 18, 2009, 07:55 »
Yes definetley worth it! but hold on a minute. Downsizing? no I wouldnt do that at all! In the entire stockworld, may it be RM, RF, Micro or whatever, the general moto is: the bigger the better.
By downsizing and especially to IS, youre limiting your sales and incomes quite a bit. At IS, the competition is neckbreaking and you should at least be able to produce pictures selling as L, XL even XXL.
Many of us at IS work cameras capable of huge files,
Always supply at best quality and maximum size.
well thats my thoughts anyway.
When they recommend downsizing, they don't necessarily mean reduce the saleable size - but if you have, say, a 10MP camera and your image is a little noisier than ideal, or a little soft, you can downsize to just above Large with no change in the sale size (on iStock anyway). It can help it get through inspection, sometimes. I've even had inspectors recommend doing that. Of course, if you have 12.2MP it would obviously be better to stay at XL size if you can...
548
« on: February 23, 2009, 09:46 »
I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on. You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing. And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.
Commission increases with ranking/sales at SS, DT and FT and images also have to 'earn' their search-order placement too __ and that would make a huge difference. I'm absolutely certain that if I were to go exclusive, change my mind a few months later, and then become independent again it would absolutely crucify my earnings for months, probably years, afterwards.
But that's exactly my point - coming FROM exclusivity is a lot easier than going TO exclusivity. I'd have to work hard to upload my images to lots of sites, fair point, but I'd only be giving up a percentage of my existing income. Though bouncing from one to another would indeed need a lot of justification...
549
« on: February 23, 2009, 09:24 »
I'm also thinking it's a lot easier to give up exclusivity after some time than it is to take it on. You don't have to wait 90 days, or six months in another case, to remove your portfolio on some other site, for one thing. And it's not like you can't go exclusive again later if it really doesn't work out - though in that case you do have to wait 90 days.
Really? Have you tried uploading several thousand images to several different agencies as quickly as possible? Pretty painful I would think.
Fair point!!!
550
« on: February 23, 2009, 08:20 »
Where did you hear that it was going to take effect this week?
They announced they were trialling it a few weeks back and would release it shortly if all worked out OK, but since then nothing - so I'm guessing they're still ironing out the bugs...
I heard it at UGCX.. I didn't bother remembering the date, but I thought they said something to do with about 2 weeks (which was 2 weeks ago)
Oh wow! Now I am looking forward to it!
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
?
