|
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 - steheap
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 63
601
« on: May 02, 2014, 12:54 »
Quote from: steheap on Today at 11:14
Quote
GDUSA
Graphic Design USA Magazine
The Next Step in Simple
http://blog.gdusa.com/the-next-step-in-simple/
I've added a comment to that blog article. Perhaps some of their readers will see it
Steve
I couldn't see your comment, but I've added mine: I only see mine and not yours! Perhaps they have to be approved first? Steve
603
« on: May 01, 2014, 15:09 »
I've written my own little piece on this on my blog: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2014/05/boycott-fotolia-stock-agency/But quick question - I have been deleting images by hand, but can we not just ask Fotolia to delete the whole account? Would that not be easier? Sorry if I have missed a discussion about this option. Steve
604
« on: April 30, 2014, 15:03 »
You destroy our market and yours too The trouble is - this is a very logical thing for a smaller agency with a lot of files to do. They will take market share quickly (they believe) due to the predatory pricing and their own share of a now smaller revenue pot will grow. It makes perfect sense for them as a business as long as they are first to do it, and as long as the contributors don't revolt. That is what we must do! Steve
605
« on: April 30, 2014, 14:32 »
The more I read of this, the clearer it becomes that Fotolia, with its small market share and revenue, has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from pushing pricing as low as they can go in the expectation that SS and iStock cannot (for financial reasons) or will not follow them. The only people that lose are those bigger agencies and, of course, the contributors who now get these lowly sums for any size of image bought on demand.
Our only action as contributors is to show, as best we can, that we care about this stuff and that we are not going to sit idly by as passive cows in the field and take this from Fotolia. I've removed myself from DPC and will remove myself from Fotolia tomorrow. Even so, we know that there are a whole raft of silent contributors who won't take action, but what choice do WE have.
I guess there is a subset of contributors who may benefit - people who have chosen to put a lot of effort and imagery into Fotolia and not as much elsewhere. I feel sorry for Mat having to defend this race to the bottom.
Steve
606
« on: April 29, 2014, 17:56 »
Well I've taken my 2800 images out of DPC. It seems pretty clear they are planning to destroy the entire market in order to grow their own revenue and they are making use of the fact that most of us have our images on all sites. I wondered why I only had 1 ED on Shutterstock this month - normally 3 - 8 each month. I think I may have the answer. I know it is statistically unreliable to reach a conclusion based on one month results, but this could be the start of a tsunami...
Steve
607
« on: April 28, 2014, 11:04 »
Horribly slow for me as well. It is the Enhanced downloads that are missing for me - just one for the whole month whereas I got 8 in February. It must be that all my buyers of EDs have flocked to the Dollar Club at Fotolia to buy them there!
Steve
PS - on the good news side I just passed the $30K earnings level on Shutterstock over the weekend. Nothing happens, but it is nice to hit new thresholds
608
« on: April 26, 2014, 21:14 »
I've never like Fotolia - the upload is hard, they don't like my travel shots etc. etc. but I have stuck with them. Without an opt-out, I will leave and take my 2800 images with me
Steve
610
« on: April 14, 2014, 10:04 »
No problem - I don't feel bad about any of this. Lets just keep calm... I've recently found the LightRoom does amazing things with adjusting individual colours. Less fun than doing it with a trad filter but certainly very flexible. I use LR a lot - that is my main go to tool - the HSL adjustments are really interesting for bringing up saturation (or changing the hue) or individual colors, and I really like the ability to change color temperature via the brush and gradient - that can make a big difference to the skies where you can cool them off very nicely. It is tough to make big changes that don't affect other things though - the flowers in my example for instance - as the colors as you get right up to the edge of another object aren't as pure and hence don't get picked up as easily by the HSL controls. Still - I think we are all agreeing that we have some things that we like using, and sometimes it is worth the money to get a bit of enjoyment out of this business! Could I do a business case to buy this filter - no way, but then I don't have a CFO to answer to! Steve
611
« on: April 14, 2014, 08:44 »
Wow - I've been away from the forum for 12 hours and I come back to quite a debate! Firstly, there are no affiliate links at all in the blog - I get nothing from Singh-Ray (or Helicon Focus who are mentioned as well). I'm also happy for anyone to mention it on their blog and link back.
On the broader question of value for money - you are right, it is expensive. I originally bought it because I think it can really brighten up some scenes if you have traveled somewhere, haven't much time, and the lighting isn't great. I also found that it can modify shades and luminance of colors in ways that would be quite hard to reproduce in software. I'm pretty competent in Photoshop, but changing the color of the sky when you have thousands of blossoms in front of it is not that easy. I do have various plugins, and I probably should spend some more time with them, but I do enjoy getting a nice shot in the camera. I'm not paranoid about it - I will happily "make it better" in processing - but I found this filter to be good fun to use and it sometimes gets those creative juices flowing! I will update my blog to mention how expensive it is - that would be a reasonable thing to add.
Anyway, thanks for the interest!
Steve
612
« on: April 13, 2014, 17:45 »
I use Lightroom, but I don't get this issue. How do the synonyms get in there in the first place - do you have a controlled vocabulary set of keywords loaded? There is a setting in export to ignore synonyms, but I have it unchecked.
Steve
613
« on: April 13, 2014, 17:41 »
As this is in the Photography section of the forum, I'll post a link to an article I wrote today about using the Singh-Ray Gold-n-Blue polarizing filter. I found it could make some pretty interesting effects, and so will earn its place in my photo backpack for future expeditions! Here is an example:  http://www.backyardsilver.com/2014/04/stock-photo-experiments-singh-ray-gold-n-blue-filter/Hope the article is useful to some of you. I've only posted the image for sale on my own stock agency for now - I can imagine the "incorrect white balance" rejections at Shutterstock! Steve
614
« on: April 09, 2014, 09:38 »
He means Adobe RGB. Alamy and the bigger macro sites often prefer that color space.
steve
615
« on: April 07, 2014, 14:10 »
This discussion reminded me that I hadn't calculated my percentage of earnings from the various stock sites recently, and so I did that for 2012 - 2013. A bit of discussion about the results for March on my blog, but here is the chart. Sorry it is going to be big, but it would be hard to see it any other way. The best way to work out which color belongs to which agency is to count up from the bottom - the bars are displayed in order from bottom to top. Steve PS - and thanks to those who have just found my site and bought my book! 
617
« on: April 01, 2014, 11:21 »
Best month for me as well - just breached the $2750 earnings line on about 5000 - 5500 images.
Steve
618
« on: March 09, 2014, 18:54 »
"real life" experience with this on FAA Hi Martha I decided not to watermark mine. I take the view that my images (if they are also on stock sites) are all over the internet anyway and someone who doesn't want to pay can pick one up on any site. So why bother particularly about FAA? I took down my very obvious stock shots - isolated cats - and tried to make my portfolio more artistic. Even so, I saw that someone had sold three big prints of isolated red wine being poured into a glass : http://fineartamerica.com/featured/red-wine-pouring-into-wineglass-splash-dustin-k-ryan.html. I immediately thought - I have some shots like that, but of course, not on FAA! I keep uploading ones that I think would be nice on a wall somewhere - it isn't hard work if they are already keyworded. Steve
619
« on: March 07, 2014, 11:03 »
Hi Steve . . . nearly 3 months along, how are things holding up for you on FAA? Still strong? Only just seen this, so I'll fill in the latest. After my three sales in December, I got one more sale in late January (wrote about it on my blog here: http://www.backyardsilver.com/2014/02/where-have-i-been/. That was for $120. Nothing since. I keep meaning to upload some more arty work, but I diverted myself into creating a new "fine art" site to replace one I have with Smugmug and once I am happy with that I will get back to FAA I think. Steve
620
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:32 »
Me too - $146 in February, $10 in March so far.
Shutterstock is pretty lame as well with very few ODs for me. Plenty of subs, but that is no way to earn a living!
Steve
621
« on: February 24, 2014, 18:06 »
$278 for me. Oh well - just keep calm
Steve
622
« on: February 20, 2014, 17:53 »
I did the search for the yellow roses on white background - amazing the keywording skills of the newest uploaders!
What I thought was funny was that the site suggested related searches which were "sexy woman maid dress stockings", "african american elderly", "nuns", "Influenza" and "Pouring Jug"
We used to think we had issues with the similars search on Symbiostock, but it hardly compares to those suggestions.
Steve
623
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:55 »
I've just submitted three relatively similar images that had the same keywords originally. Two of them I modified to significantly reduce to the really important ones. When they get accepted, I'll try some searches and report back.
Steve
624
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:52 »
Hi Martha
I think the answer is that they are working on what you have earned from licensing images via them in the tax year. They will be reporting their own company accounts in the same way - ie every sale from midnight on 1 Jan to midnight on 31 Dec will count as income, and your share needs to be accounted for. Cash payments in and out are something different and are accounted for in their balance sheet (I think) which tracks cash movements over the year. So they are reporting your income as seen by them. The fact that you haven't been paid it in cash is neither here nor there in that accounting treatment.
Most of us work on a cash basis - ie we track money in and out. This is a valid way of accounting for a small business. However with a 1099 around, you need to be reporting what the 1099 says, I think, to avoid issues.
Steve
625
« on: February 20, 2014, 12:12 »
I can answer a part of this. The first 1099 probably showed (if it was like mine) "Non employee compensation" as the type of income. The corrected one shows "Royalties" which I think is the correct category.
On your second question - I just looked at mine. I have actually been paid out $728 (yes, bragging again) whereas my 1099 is for $982, so they are obviously reporting the royalty earnings in the year rather than what they have paid out (which could cover multiple tax years if you ask for a payout in January).
Steve
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 63
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
