|
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 - michaeldb
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 37
576
« on: March 14, 2011, 11:52 »
"Why does everyone expect images to be submitted, images to be reviewed, images to sell, and money to be transferred?"
Those activities were unsustainable. Actually, IS stopped reviewing my images months ago, when I stopped submitting them.
577
« on: February 22, 2011, 12:19 »
CanStockPhoto has been good for me too. I had great sales last month and posted a thread:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/canstockphoto-com/can-stock-blowing-up!/
I also posted in that thread but I will add here that my CanStockPhoto sales have not only continued to increase since that post, the rate of increase has grown. Much more than at SS, DT, or FT. (I do illustrations, vectors mostly, some 3D renders.) Not trying to brag, just sharing that my experience is like the OP's.
578
« on: February 21, 2011, 12:19 »
everything Getty does sucks; er, I mean Thanks for the Notification. Now I can finally finish doing my sales stats for January.
579
« on: February 21, 2011, 12:06 »
...Put together brilliantly and since I left in 2006 Duncan has done a tremendous Job...
Yeah, anyone who left in the slow-sales days should reconsider, IMO. And any independant new to microstock is making a mistake if they don't put CanStockPhoto on their list of sites to submit to. The turnaround there is really somthing. So many things to like about CanStockPhoto now. Whenever 'that other site' makes me depressed about Canadian microstock companies, I visit CanStockPhoto and I feel better. 
580
« on: February 20, 2011, 21:11 »
Why the surprise? IS has done about everything possible to make uploading onerous. Even after other sites, years ago, have shown how easy it could be.
+1
581
« on: February 16, 2011, 13:54 »
...One of the bizarre effects of iS policy is that image price depends on supplier status not image quality...
This has been my biggest objection to IS since 2005 when I was accepted as a contributor. IS, much more than any other site, always seems to be searching for ways to favor some contributors over others (cannisters, best match preference, Vetta, exclusive/non-exclusive, review times, and on and on). IMHO it would be better if images were judged on their merits, not so much on who made them. Wouldn't this also be better for buyers, who surely have little or no interest in who made the images?
582
« on: February 15, 2011, 21:07 »
Some of the other agencies could cut their rates in half and still pay better than istock.
Eeep!! Don't give anybody any ideas!! 
+Eeep!!
583
« on: February 14, 2011, 18:19 »
Pulling links that point to the big guys (like iS and FT) will not hurt them that much...
Maybe so, but I sent at least 20 new members and customers to iStock from links on my site. I have deleted those links. Every little bit hurts. And I wonder: Are the anonymous IS cheerleaders here rudely deriding the OP's suggestions because they won't work, or because they might work? 
584
« on: February 11, 2011, 21:04 »
...YES, and to make glass, you only need sand.
And also to make silicon chips. Yes, it is right to point out that the 3D learning curve is long and steep. If you know nothing about 3D, learning to make a good render with 3DSMax, for example, will take 20 times longer than it took to learn Illustrator, and a hundred times longer than to learn Photoshop. And 200 times longer than learning to use a DSLR. But maybe it will be worth it. 
585
« on: February 11, 2011, 20:44 »
No, I changed my login from brm1949 to Lightwriter1949 and haven't changed it here yet.
I tried finding this person on istockcharts and he doesn't show up, although on my site mail it came back that they have been with istock since 2007.
the name is bluewing. I think I'll just let this pass. Doesn't seem legit.
It's your call, but I suspect you are making a mistake. A good friend of mine, an artist and nature photographer, used to do a lot of work for a club of big game hunters. Those people have a great deal of money to spend on their sport/hobby, and they don't care very much what anything costs.
586
« on: February 11, 2011, 17:09 »
587
« on: February 11, 2011, 14:05 »
Your examples are great photorealistic vectors. Does that make them better Illustrators?
Good question. I am always surprised at how many of us fail to understand what business we are in. Microstock sites are not art galleries. Superior images are those which sell more. Some sites (e.g. Vectorstock, Fotolia) pay more credits for vectors which are 'complex'. Why? Is there any evidence that 'complex' vectors earn more money? DT on the other hand, pays more for images which have sold more. This makes sense. Even in 'art' virtuosity is not the same thing as beauty, as Morphart points out. Microstock is a business. The products which succeed are those which sell more. Nothing else should matter. If you want to make photorealistic images, go buy a camera.
588
« on: February 10, 2011, 12:24 »
You might check out Rodeo. It is a Finnish stock site, and they do sell vectors. They have had some problems lately because the owner suffered a broken back in an accident on a photography shoot, but it looks like they may be getting back to normal. At Rodeo I have been earning per month about the same as Veer and about half as much as Vectorstock. http://www.rodeo.fiThe site is in Finnish but you can write them or email them in English: Rodeo Ltd PL 45, 00661 Helsinki Finland [email protected]
589
« on: February 09, 2011, 17:23 »
Do yourself a favor and don't take the IS rejections or their 'reasons' seriously.
I have been gold at IS for a couple years (unless I have been demoted in the recent changes, I really haven't checked to see). IS used to reject almost all my vectors which sold well at all other sites, which is why I only made it to gold. But IS doesn't reject them anymore because I stopped submitting to IS. It's time wasted which could be better spent doing something else.
Best of luck to you if you continue submitting to IS, but don't take their rejections to heart. IS reviewers favor exclusives almost exclusively, and you probably have as good an idea of what a good commercial microstock image does as the IS reviewers do.
590
« on: February 09, 2011, 17:08 »
I like GL. It's a nice site. The reviewers are fair, in my experience. I think they first emphasized vectors (which is what I make), and it may take them a while to get fully up to speed in photos.
Here are my numbers there:
Member Since: 06/01/2010
Portfolio Images: 684
Total Earnings: $190.32
Definitely worth the effort IMO, since it is one of the easiest sites to submit to.
591
« on: February 08, 2011, 20:05 »
From your blog post:
That is why whether you should become an IStockPhoto Exclusive or not is highly depend on your skills. If you are super good, IStockPhoto Exclusive is your route to millionaire. If you are not that good, you may want to consider joining the other agencies...
The best illustrators should go exclusive and the mediocre ones should be independent? I'm sorry but that is total crap.
+1
592
« on: February 03, 2011, 12:44 »
Thanks for the happy news, Whiz. Glad to see that the US Senate has voted to repeal this. But I wonder if it means that the 1099 is really gone, or does the House have to repeal it also?
Anybody know?
593
« on: January 30, 2011, 20:21 »
I guess the question is: Which one is Istock- AOL or Apple? One went down in flames and the other was reborn stronger than ever.
Right now my money would be on AOL.
I agree. We all know the companies which turned their initial foothold into permanent marketshare dominance: Amazon, Microsoft, Ebay, and so on. But the history of the computer business is littered with the names we now forget, companies who blew their lead and put the truth in the saying, "It pays to be second." The spreadsheet, the word processor, the microcomputer database, the first micrcomputer for consumers, the GUI were all invented by companies which no longer exist or are no longer in the microcomputer business. When was the last time you bought software from Digital Research, the company which produced CP/M, the first real microcomputer operating system? Or Heathkit? Or VisiCalc, which sold the first spreadsheet? Will the first microstock agency end up in that graveyard? IS is making way too many mistakes. They may live to rue the day that they mistreated independents and illustrators the way they have. IS thinks they can get away with anything. They may be wrong.
594
« on: January 27, 2011, 23:54 »
Best if luck in your new position, Brian. IMO you have done an exemplary job keeping us posted on Veer's changes. I think most microstockers have positive feelings about Veer now, probably in large part due to your efforts.
595
« on: January 27, 2011, 21:13 »
Here's an excellent blog where a former Istock exclusive documents her experiences since giving up the crown a couple of months ago.
http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/
That's an interesting read. I was interested in the IS poll she posted, too. She is right, it is a small portion of the total number of contributors, but I would be willing to bet the percentages would be about the same if ALL contributors responded.
+1, good link
596
« on: January 27, 2011, 13:31 »
You don't pay the supplier until 45 days after the purchase. (can you say 'compound interest')
...Kinda make you wish you'd thought of this 10 years ago.
Good description of SS's business model. But if you had started SS ten years ago, with the expectation of making money from interest, you would be in trouble today. The amount of interest you would be earning now is a small fraction of what you would have expected back in 2001. Who would have predicted then that a 1 year CD would be paying 1% interest in 2011? Maybe that's one reason why SS has stopped giving us raises? Maybe if the Fed ever stops keeping interest rates near zero, we will get a raise to .39 at SS. 
597
« on: January 25, 2011, 23:13 »
Vectors and some 3D
Me too.
598
« on: January 24, 2011, 11:44 »
GraphicLeftovers and CutCaster sounded good, and I put about 150 images on each. Never got a sale at CC. At GL I got a few, and even made a payout, but that ended after a few months and I've sold nothing since mid November.
Other people reported this too. Maybe the Holiday Slowdown hit smaller sites more than bigger ones. Lately, my sales at GL have begun to rebound, and are doing better than ever. CC is also showing signs of life, and their new site may help. IMO it's still worth supporting these fairer sites with submissions. GL is especially easy to submit to. I really don't see a downside to submitting there.
599
« on: January 23, 2011, 14:11 »
You might check out Rodeo. A thread here says that Yuha has a large backlog of unreviewed images, but I have still been getting sales there this month.
600
« on: January 20, 2011, 23:59 »
...Graphic Leftovers 52%...
I might add that at GL you can set your own price. The most popular price is $6 which yields you $3+ per sale. Uploading is easy, even for vectors, and the mgmt and reviewers are nice people. I have gotten several payouts there, and I know for a fact that some people are doing very, very well at GL. It's definitely worth submitting to, IMO.
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 37
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
