551
New Sites - General / Re: Reflex Stock
« on: June 14, 2011, 08:02 »
I found some of my images twice there - they are from 123rf and CanStock
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. 551
New Sites - General / Re: Reflex Stock« on: June 14, 2011, 08:02 »
I found some of my images twice there - they are from 123rf and CanStock
552
New Sites - General / Re: Reflex Stock« on: June 14, 2011, 01:51 »
Ingrampublishing seems to be really hardworking artist. Even harder than legendary Colossus:
http://www.photaki.com/photographer/ingrampublishing 553
Shutterstock.com / Re: shutterstock rejecting everything,Why?« on: June 12, 2011, 04:57 »
I found this on SS Forum. But it doesn't change anything on the fact that some of the rejections are really absurd (like poor lightning - white balance may be incorrect - for my bitmap illustration).
Dear Contributors, We work hard to improve our review standards on a continuous basis. As the Shutterstock collection grows, we want to maintain consistency and improve overall quality within the collection. There has never been any automation in our review process. We utilize knowledgeable reviewers who do their best to provide fair reviews for all submitted content. The fact remains, however, that the process is a subjective one. If you receive a rejection and would like a bit more information as to why, we welcome you to post your photos in the critique forum to get feedback from other contributors. With the help and input of the talented Shutterstock contributor community we know you will continue to meet the challenges of these improvements. If you still feel that a review was done incorrectly, you are welcome to contact support ([email protected]) with your request. Best Regards, Content Operations Shutterstock 554
StockFresh / Re: A year? Really?« on: June 10, 2011, 12:35 »Is the email address [email protected] or is there another support email I need to use? Yes - [email protected]. It took three days after I wrote to them. 555
StockFresh / Re: A year? Really?« on: June 10, 2011, 09:05 »I got accepted today after sending them question about how much longer I have to wait. Same here. 556
Adobe Stock / Re: Unsold files« on: June 04, 2011, 02:23 »
I think they are in unsold tab because it was possible to give them for free and get paid for it - as mentioned by qwerty. But this option if I am not mistaken is not available anymore - you get no money for them. So I think that at the moment it's just for your info and if you don't decide to give them away for free (absolutely for free) or delete (maybe because of Fotolia ranking - I don't know) it doesn't mean anything and that they are still available for sale.
557
DepositPhotos / Re: Deposit Photos Payout Request?« on: June 01, 2011, 09:51 »
Main Menu - Sales - Payout Report - Request Earnings
558
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock Earnings - May 2011« on: June 01, 2011, 02:39 »
May was great month for me: BME - total, Fotolia, Dreamstime, 123rf, CanStock, VectorStock, Big Stock, Deposit, first sales on Cutcaster and Alamy, great month at Zazzle.
Average Shutterstock, Veer, PantherMedia and GLO. And Zoonar - stable zero. Strange to me is that Fotolia still earns almost twice more than Dreamstime for me. It's same every month. 559
Image Sleuth / Re: Public Domain Images?« on: June 01, 2011, 02:13 »
Probably refferal mafia. When I put "dreamstime 1008018" in Google, there are few pages of links with his/her "referrer=1008018" code.
560
Image Sleuth / Re: Public Domain Images?« on: May 31, 2011, 15:37 »
Dreamstime link is this
http://www.dreamstime.com/search.php?srh_field=people&referrer=1008018 It won't be diffficult to find who's that "businessman" who tries to get referals this way. I doubt that Dreamstime knows about it. By the way - do you see that site in English? I can see it in czech but it looks like automated translation. 561
General Stock Discussion / Re: New Microstock Keyword Tool« on: May 31, 2011, 07:28 »
Great tool. Thank you.
562
123RF / Re: Royalty percentage« on: May 31, 2011, 04:12 »
Hi All,
I shall explain pricing. The scenario : Our cheapest package = $15 for 15 credits. Price per credit = $1 / credit 50% share to you = $0.50 / credit If customer purchases an S size image from you, you'll get $0.50. Clear? If the customer purchases an XXL image from you (5 credits), you'll get 5 x $0.50 = $2.50 for that image downloaded. Of course, we have discounts, loyal customers, customer who want a big discount as they've been with us for a very long time, so we then discount them for bulk purchases. Nevertheless, we will go through the same calculations and contributors will get 50% of the effective credit price. So where does the $0.20/credit come from? These credits come from our PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES such as the case of giving away CREDITS to prospective clients whom we think require a bit of a test drive on the 123RF system before they make their first purchase. A demo if you like, we give these out at our discretion. The client DID NOT PAY for these credits, it's given to them courtesy of 123RF.com. Therefore, seeing as 123RF is giving away these credits, it comes out from our Advertising and Promotions Budget and there is a cost attached to it - 20 cents per credit given away. I do hope you'll see this a bonus from your business partner 123RF as the prospective client did not pay for them in the first place. As I have maintained many times before, 123RF Limited is running a business, we are not here to give away to charity nor as some have eloquently put it - "screw" our contributors. Thank you for maintaining your objectivity on this matter. If there are any questions, you can always email us : [email protected] P/S - Forums were closed because we decided to shift to Facebook. They have excellent searchable threads there. Alex 563
123RF / Re: Royalty percentage« on: May 31, 2011, 03:46 »
8.Contributor's Payment
1. 123RF pays its Contributors based on the total license sales of downloaded images that belong to Contributors and on the total nett revenue in a particular month (50%). I don't know about any exceptions. 564
Photo Critique / Re: Ok, slightly different approach, Photo Critique please« on: May 31, 2011, 01:47 »
I think that Shutterstock reviewer would say :"Poor Lighting--Poor or uneven lighting, or shadows. White balance may be incorrect."
+ there is strange reflection in lower part of image. 565
Photo Critique / Re: Let me try this again, Photo Critique please« on: May 30, 2011, 14:56 »
Frankly speaking - I'm almost sure that even if you get rid of all the chromatic aberration, noise and softness problems it won't approved by iS anyway because of poor composition and because on this kind of shot you cannot show how good photographer you are. But I may be mistaken.
566
General Stock Discussion / Re: Microstock prices are becoming unaffordable« on: May 30, 2011, 06:42 »
That image is obviously of low commercial value due to cropping. And focus is not located where I feel it works best.
![]() 567
Veer / Re: Veer Partnered with Media Bakery, copyright info has been stripped and replaced« on: May 29, 2011, 02:18 »
Great for Veer. Bad for Pixmac - obviously there was fast solution.
568
Veer / Re: Veer Partnered with Media Bakery, copyright info has been stripped and replaced« on: May 28, 2011, 10:11 »
No I cannot see correct copyright name. I meant that on Pixmac it looked like "More by this artist: Colossus"
Nevertheless I know that mentioning of the artist doesn't change anything on the fact that it is copyright infringement. 569
Veer / Re: Veer Partnered with Media Bakery, copyright info has been stripped and replaced« on: May 28, 2011, 09:41 »
I can see: (c) MediaBakery. But images include right artist's name as well.
This is progress. In Pixmac case it looked like Colossus is the most hardworking artist ever. 570
123RF / Re: How do you delete photos off of 123RF?« on: May 27, 2011, 04:29 »Quote A lot of their rejections were always my best sellers on the other sites. I agree. I think that if I would have send them batch of one hundred images and one of them would be recejected (because of low commercial value), I'm almost sure that it would be the one that is best selling of them on other sites. But on the other hand it's my 4th best earning site and it looks like that this "approval illogicalness" appears everywhere. Except Canstock - they are consistent - they take every snapshot if it not out of focus. 571
Bigstock.com / Big Stock - Payout« on: May 26, 2011, 06:20 »
"If you have more than $30 in commissions, you will see options that allow you to request payout of your commissions."
I think that payout at BigStock was 50 USD or am I mistaken? If I am not, then I love Shutterstock even more. 30 USD should be usual amount for payout for all low earning sites. 572
Microstock Services / Re: Keyword Comparison Tool« on: May 26, 2011, 03:00 »
Very useful. Thank you.
573
Featurepics.com / Re: 1 year lock time.« on: May 24, 2011, 03:35 »
I think it is 6 months at Zoonar as well.
574
Off Topic / Re: Been nice knowing all of you« on: May 20, 2011, 19:13 »
I bought that funny GorillaPod tripod today. All I can do now is to hang myself on it. Fortunately I chose SLR-Zoom Version, with mini version it would be impossible.
575
Off Topic / Re: Been nice knowing all of you« on: May 20, 2011, 18:45 »
If I knew it sooner I would lease D3S and Porsche one month ago.
|
Submit Your Vote
|