|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 51
576
« on: October 11, 2007, 13:36 »
They probably have a hotline (sort of like the Bat-phone) to IS if they have any issues.
577
« on: October 08, 2007, 14:37 »
I've never heard of snappertown.
I believe they were trying to be funny. They were probably talking about SnapVillage.
579
« on: October 07, 2007, 17:01 »
Oh well. My egg image got rejected for "sensor spots still visible".
The "sensor spots" that they are talking about are actually spots on the egg. If they ever looked at an egg up close, they would see that it isn't a perfect white object. It has micro cracks, discolorations, spots, etc.
It isn't worth it for me to send this to Scout, so I will have to take a pass on this competition. Sorry that I wasn't able to play...
Well, I checked the image at 100% and it actually did have two sensor spots! But I had to look at the image for about a half hour and compare it to some other images from the same shoot to be able to tell which spots were egg spots and which spots were sensor spots. So I fixed the image and resubmitted it. The issue now (for this competition) is that the resubmitted image now has a new submission date of 10/02/07, instead of the original submission date of 09/27/07. So I will leave it up to Leaf on whether or not the image should be considered for the competition.
580
« on: October 05, 2007, 03:17 »
As you are probably aware, IS allows a buyer to purchase a print of your image (if you have it enabled).
I was wondering how many people have had prints sold.
Also, if you don't mind, it would be helpful if you could provide a link to the image that has had a print sold.
581
« on: October 05, 2007, 03:10 »
582
« on: October 04, 2007, 05:43 »
584
« on: October 03, 2007, 05:40 »
585
« on: October 02, 2007, 11:45 »
Oh well. My egg image got rejected for "sensor spots still visible". The "sensor spots" that they are talking about are actually spots on the egg. If they ever looked at an egg up close, they would see that it isn't a perfect white object. It has micro cracks, discolorations, spots, etc. It isn't worth it for me to send this to Scout, so I will have to take a pass on this competition. Sorry that I wasn't able to play...
586
« on: October 02, 2007, 05:57 »
587
« on: October 02, 2007, 05:53 »
588
« on: October 01, 2007, 01:29 »
I would recommend not including Extended License sales, otherwise they will skew the results.
589
« on: September 30, 2007, 18:25 »
590
« on: September 30, 2007, 17:16 »
allright, i submitted an image to istock but i have strong doubts they are going to take it  here's hoping.
I also submitted an egg image the other day, but I have my doubts as well. Most of my stuff gets accepted everywhere else, but IS gives me lots of rejections. I guess it's because I'm not exclusive. Hopefully, they will find the image "eggcellent". Sorry, but I couldn't resist. This contest reminded me of the Batman TV series from the 70s (specifically Egghead). I used to watch that show every day.
591
« on: September 27, 2007, 05:49 »
For licensing, a contributor has to choose RF or RM as a single choice across all images.
My understanding is quite different. The way I understand it, you choose a license type (RF vs RM) for each image. The online Pricing Tutorial makes the following statements: "In our system, you must first select a license type for an image, and then price the image according to that license type.""Some photographers will price all of their images according to one license type, but some will use a mix; pricing certain types of images as RF and others as RM."You can change the choice any time I think, and it applies to all future sales and images.
Once again, that is not my understanding. Here is a quote from the online Pricing Tutorial: "Bear in mind that once you sell an image as RF, you cannot subsequently sell it as RM."
592
« on: September 26, 2007, 18:08 »
Here is some more info from their Pricing Tutorial:
"RF images are priced according to size. Basically, we take the image you submit and create a size chart of available sizes for the buyer to purchase. This is why we recommend you submit the highest resolution image possible, because it allows us to sell a wider range of sizes."
"The system will not allow you to price any image for less than $50. If you want to sell your work for less, there are several microstock sites on the internet that are built for such low-priced imagery. However, professional buyers expect to pay more for high quality imagery and have the budget allocated accordingly. If imagery becomes commoditized, photographers will no longer be able to make a living from their work, and the whole industry will lose. Please have confidence in your work and price it according to industry standards - and never below $50."
593
« on: September 26, 2007, 17:40 »
Most microstock sites sell the smallest size for 1 credit (which equates to about $1). That would compare to the smallest size on Photoshelter for $50. So their is a pretty large difference in pricing.
Larger sizes on the microstock sites sell for more (up to $20), but PhotoShelter will charge more for larger sizes as well.
Although I personally don't have a problem with people selling images for different amounts on different sites, many people do have a problem with it.
where did you see that the smallest size was going to sell for $50.00. I only saw that we could price our images for $50.00 minimum. Perhaps they are only going to sell one size / which is the large size.
Well, I never thought of it that way. I just assumed that they would follow the lead of the majority of sites and offer various sizes. So I did a little more investigating and found the following statement in their Submission Guidelines: We encourage you to submit the largest file size you have, up to 100MB. This will enable us to create the widest range of sellable sizes to buyer (e.g., from cell phones to billboards).This seems to indicate that they will offer various sizes.
595
« on: September 26, 2007, 17:03 »
I was actually going to suggest something along these lines, but I wasn't aware what was technically possible. With some of the IS news items getting extremely lengthy, this comes just in the nick of time. Thanks for the great work.
596
« on: September 26, 2007, 05:52 »
I took a look at the PhotoShelter Collection Contributor's Agreement (@http://mp.photoshelter.com/about/policies/contributor). Here are some of my comments:
"You may set the pricing for your Contributed Content; however, the minimum sale price for any image sold on the Website shall be $50.00."
This makes me think that they are looking for content that is different from what is normally submitted to most other microstock sites. That elusive "midstock" that some people are talking about. They don't mention it, but I wonder if they will take images that are on other microstock sites? After all, a buyer might get upset to find that they paid $50 for an image when they could have gotten it for $1 somewhere else.
"All sales of Contributed Content are subject to a thirty (30) day return period."
Seems like an extraordinarily long time for a user to decide that they don't want a digital image. IMO, seven (7) days should be more than sufficient for a return period. After all, a buyer would only need to look at the image at full-size once they download it to make sure that it is of good quality.
"All payments to you will be made forty-five (45) days after the sale date."
Why is there another 15 day waiting period (after the 30 day return period) to receive payment? Seems like an awful long time.
"No payments to you will be made in the event the buyer ... fails to pay for the purchase notwithstanding PhotoShelters reasonable efforts to collect payment within forty-five (45) days."
I'm baffled on this one! Wouldn't the buyer be purchasing the image with credits that they already bought? How would this clause ever get enacted?
"Any sales of Contributed Content made by you using the PhotoShelter e-commerce services or Website shall be subject to a fee of thirty percent (30%) of the sale amount (unless you are a Flagship Photographer, in which case our fee will be set by the Fee Schedule emailed to you by PhotoShelter at the time you first joined the marketplace site, or unless you are a Beta photographer, meaning you were accepted into the site prior to November 4th, in which case our fee will be 15% for a six-month period on all images submitted on or before November 4th, 2007, with that six month period beginning November 5, 2007 and ending May 4th, 2008, at which time our fees on all of your images will be 30%), which fee shall be payable to PhotoShelter."
So it seems that if you sign up before 11/05, that you will receive an 85% royalty for 6 months and then the normal 70% thereafter. This is a little different than what they are touting on their front-page ("Earn 85% commission on all images submitted before November 5th"). But I still think that it is acceptable since it is on the high end of the commission scale. I just wish that companies wouldn't try to twist things so much to get people to do things.
"You may elect to receive payments for sales of your Contributed Content by check, ACH, or PayPal. In the event you elect to be paid by check, PhotoShelter will issue your payment check no more than once each calendar month and only in months when the amount due to you from PhotoShelter is at least $100."
They don't seem to indicate the minimum payout for ACH or PayPal. And they don't seem to offer Moneybookers at this time (this might be a problem for those that can't get PayPal). They also don't seem to mention MassPay, so I'm not sure if there will be a fee upon payment.
What do you guys think???
597
« on: September 26, 2007, 05:10 »
i don't know much about programing things but i heard someone say before (perhaps it was on here somewhere) that this is the same problem friendster ran into a little while ago... maybe someone else has more info 
Yeah, that was me. Friendster ran into this exact problem. If someone wants a technical explanation just p.m. me.
Yes, you are correct. Friendster did run into the same problem - poor implementation of technology.
598
« on: September 21, 2007, 06:55 »
Did you make sure to include images from other artists?
599
« on: September 20, 2007, 06:19 »
I checked out the site and did a brief test.
I first searched for "movie ticket" and it seemed to come up with a lot of images that didn't have a ticket at all.
I then tried to narrow down my search slightly by searching for "blue movie ticket". I figured that would result in a lot less hits, but it actually seemed to increase the number of results exponentially.
I finally searched for "ticket" and it ended up with the smallest result set.
So it seems that multiple words in the search are treated with the conditional "or". In other words "movie ticket" is treated as "movie or ticket" and "blue movie ticket" is treated as "blue or movie or ticket". So the more keywords you enter, the more results you will get.
This seems counter-intuitive to me. It makes searching for complex phrases (such as "real estate") difficult. It also makes narrowing down results difficult.
Hopefully they will fix this before it hits the streets.
600
« on: September 19, 2007, 05:44 »
I suggest checking eBay and other online sites for current prices.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
