|
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 - rimglow
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 30
526
« on: September 29, 2011, 12:35 »
527
« on: September 28, 2011, 15:06 »
"For the first time, were offering customers in certain markets the option to purchase one Shutterstock image download at a time."
I would like to know what "certain markets" they mean. I hope that includes me. I would love to have access to that huge library without having to buy a package!
If you go to shutterstock.com you will see the option on the front right... 1 high res $19.
I don't see it. 
528
« on: September 28, 2011, 14:49 »
"For the first time, were offering customers in certain markets the option to purchase one Shutterstock image download at a time."
I would like to know what "certain markets" they mean. I hope that includes me. I would love to have access to that huge library without having to buy a package!
529
« on: September 28, 2011, 09:26 »
530
« on: September 27, 2011, 19:57 »
I've got 10 this month. Usually get 4 or 5.
531
« on: September 27, 2011, 19:04 »
What about a more positive approach?
What if you offered incentives to drop the offending sites, instead of threats if you don't?
532
« on: September 27, 2011, 15:15 »
If we are to be unwilling participants in this war on other sites, it would be nice to know who we are at war with.
From the forum: a call to name names.
THE CHAD
27/09/2011 20:38
Moderator
What is this?
Hello Fotolians,
It has come to our attention that some new agencies are selling the same contributor content at prices far less than most other microstock agencies. We feel that this is bad for both photographers and stock agencies. We do understand photographers are free to choose their own destiny in a free market economy, and our intention in these actions is to encourage everyone to support fair pricing for customers and commissions for contributors. Only a handful of sites and contributors have been identified thus far, and we will communicate with them before taking any action.
By sponsoring and uploading to sites that undercut prices, photographers put the whole industry in jeopardy - and we feel our duty is to take action. If the community agrees with our approach, the status quo remains. If the community wants to place down pressure on pricing, we'll adjust accordingly, as a measure to be fair and respectful to our costumers and stay competitive . Keep in mind that when rankings drop, the ability to charge more for images goes away - and that hurts everyone's bottom line, including ours .
Chad Bridwell
Director of Operations
Fotolia.com
rimglow
27/09/2011 21:47
Please advise us what sites you are talking about. How are we to avoid these sites if we don't know which ones you consider unfair?
godfer
27/09/2011 21:49
Chad, could you tell us which agencies you are referring to? It is sometimes very complicated to work out exactly how some of the sites compare against each other and I would hate for any of us to get put down to white level just because of contributing to a site where we probably aren't making any money anyway,
thanks
mandy
533
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:26 »
534
« on: September 27, 2011, 09:35 »
535
« on: September 20, 2011, 08:11 »
I found over 30 postings of 5 of my photos. I emailed Photobucket, and after instructing me on how to properly fill out the request form, they took them all down. It took almost 2 hours to find them all.
536
« on: September 19, 2011, 15:32 »
I did a quick search for my most stolen image and found it there. (Guava) I uploaded a medium res version for my photography portfolio about 10 years ago without any watermarks on pBase. I didn't know any better. It has been stolen so many times over the years I've given up on tracing every thief. 
537
« on: September 19, 2011, 14:47 »
Response to Yuri: Posted by:lthn
No sorry, not because of you or this post at all, but because I want to keep my 'speech free' about the agencies, and I do have an amount of not nice things to say about them. I think they deserve it. I also do know that they take retribution just for people stating their opinion.
A truly pathetic excuse. In the name (if I may) of many others here on this forum who do not hide behind anonymity in any shape or form, and still state what they believe, think and without fear of consequence - post it.
Grow up or grow a backbone. Or maybe better still, don't make comments at all if you don't have the guts to state who you are.
Am I missing something or is there something extremely ironic about the above post?
Now I'm confused. Unless you suggesting I'm hiding behind the same name I use on Veer, DT, ISP, SS, Pixmac, Alamy, Superstock, CanStockPhoto etc etc....
Or do you mean something else?
The first thing I did was click on your avitar to find out who you were. There's no info there so it looked like you were hiding. Thanks for clearing that up.
538
« on: September 17, 2011, 10:48 »
Click the State button. 
539
« on: September 15, 2011, 10:48 »
My balance shows $4.14!
540
« on: September 14, 2011, 15:08 »
I'll give it a critique. First off, what does the background building have to do with the picture? It's boring and unattractive. The blue shield under the dog's neck looks like it's part of a dog collar that's shifted off center. The dog looks good and is well lit. The girl has major problems Her clothes look disheveled. Her coat is too small and doesn't fit. Also appears dirty. Looks like she slept in her white shirt. Hair is a mess and uninteresting. The lighting on her face makes her appear to have a second chin. If you're going to compete with the big boys, you must try harder with how you present your model.
541
« on: September 12, 2011, 14:26 »
200 payouts a year would average out to 16.6 payments a month. I don't get near that many payments a month. It's not a conscious effort.
542
« on: September 12, 2011, 14:05 »
I request payments as soon as the payout hits between $200 to $500. On some of the lower tier sites I cash out at $100. By doing this I find that PayPal never takes a cut. A couple of times when customers paid through PayPal in amounts of $1500 to $3000, I noticed that PayPay charged me for the transaction. So I figured that when the payout is just a few hundred dollars, PayPay doesn't charge. It's like free banking.
Anybody else notice this?
543
« on: September 04, 2011, 07:36 »
I agree with Wim. That's my workflow.
544
« on: August 24, 2011, 16:45 »
Go to their homepage and click on Latest>Latest additions>More images.
That should give you a good idea.
545
« on: August 24, 2011, 07:44 »
Photo-illustrator
546
« on: August 19, 2011, 18:01 »
Offer PNG format. Once iStock implements it (soon), everybody else will have to fall in line to compete.
547
« on: August 19, 2011, 12:10 »
I read so many posts on what do reviewers know, they should judge an image only on its technical merits. I think that's BS, why are reviewers getting payed, who else is going to decide it then? What's more important is, that libraries are getting way to big especially SS's, so something should be done to make it easier for the buyer to find what he/she's looking for in a matter of minutes, not hours, like so many buyers are reporting. If anything photos should not only be judged on its technical merits, but also about all the other aspects such as concept, originality etc, wether it's a good shot or not. Nobody needs 16+ million of technically good or even perfect photos, if 95%, plainly said, sucks. As long as they don't change their mentality or better said the way they run their business (and think like most ppl over here do), putting quantity over quality, prices are not going to rise. With cutting royalties we're going to get less and less. If someone took out the garbage, good photographers would earn a few times more, bad photographers would be flushed out and search results would present relevant and quality results
I don't see anything in your post that addresses whether the reviewers are competent at marketing. If they want to reject for "aspects such as concept, originality etc, wether it's a good shot or not", that's probably what they are trained to do. I'm suggesting that no one knows what Limited Commercial Value even means. Does it mean the reviewer doesn't like photos of pizza pans, no matter how well executed, and therefore no one else will either? It's an absurd reason to reject something. How do they know what the graphic community is looking for? How could anyone know?
548
« on: August 15, 2011, 16:10 »
hehe sorry, but this one took me exactely 3 seconds on SS (searched: empty pizza pan):
That pan is fine, but it's at the wrong angle for what I needed. That's the point. You can never guess how these objects will be used.
549
« on: August 15, 2011, 14:55 »
This is what my client wanted. Had to shoot it myself. Accepted everywhere except Shutterstock. 
550
« on: August 15, 2011, 09:42 »
What isolated objects/subjects are you submitting?
Kitchenware: pizza pan I was hunting for an image of one to buy for a project last week, and couldn't find anything acceptable.
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 26 27 ... 30
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
