|
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 - a.k.a.-tom
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 44
601
« on: November 09, 2007, 16:56 »
Similar thoughts, Pixart... I've been with IS half the time I've been with IS. And I've made more than double the money with IS. IS will soon be outpacing SS for me. I feel by early 08, IS will be my top seller. My rejection rate with IS is much lower than I expected it would be. I shy'd away from them thinking my work wasn't good enough for them. One day in a moment of false bravado, I sent in my application pix. They took them. Interestingly, they take a lot of stuff that DT rejects and then SELLS it. And of the pix they reject, I can repair them, and resubmit. As a result, my reject rate with IS is lower than many of the others. All the more why I wonder why my sales at DT are flat to nonexistent.  -tom
602
« on: November 08, 2007, 16:03 »
LOL yeah, that must be it Pixart!! ha ha ha  i wish.... LOL =tom
603
« on: November 07, 2007, 17:35 »
If it sucks, it sucks well. I don't know what DT did, but they did it right, at least for me. Suddenly sales are rising, and I even got 3 extended sales in a row 3 days ago. Whoever told that sunsets and waterfalls don't sell was wrong. I even started to sell old photos with no downloads.
There has been some grumbles around about the subscription model on DT, but as far as I'm concerned, my sales went up since DT introduced it. Some people talk inspiringly about good marketing (like LO's Chief Instigator), DT just does it.
Glad to hear somone's making money.... I'm on the opposite end of the swing.... just finally sold one pic today after a 12 day dry spell with no sales at DT... My portfolio is loaded with waterfalls and sunsets and i'm moving zero... Thank the photo gods for SS & IS or I'd have to bail out of this business right now... LOL..... I'm actually up with the both of them.... but DT, 123 and StockXpert.... things have been bleak to ... worse than bleak.. all my others slow but breathing steadily... =tom p.s. to one other point by FlemishDreams... that one pic I sold.... I've never sold before and I uploaded it in October of 2006! Interesting...
604
« on: November 07, 2007, 17:23 »
it's not just a slow down but a total stop........
anyone else having this?
Not just you.... I just wrote about this yesterday or day before in another thread..... I haven't had a sale at DT in 11 or 12 days now..... VERY unusual for me. Maybe it's me... except for SS and IS (which are humming along just fine)... I've been slow EVERYWHERE else... who knows.... guess my stuffs gettin' old... LOL =tom
605
« on: November 07, 2007, 17:18 »
well, i sure don't have that problem.... my monthly sales were easy to add up... didn't sell once in october on 123... of course I can't complain too much, i've only got like... 57 pix there or something like that... I'm kind of reluctant to upload more.... doesn't seem that 123 is a really large earner for many people... opinions.... should I load 'em up... or not bother...  Your opinion is of value. -tom
606
« on: November 06, 2007, 17:01 »
I don't like that they display large photos without a proper watermark, so I am not uploading my best selling microsock images to them.
They don't have ANY watermark, do they? Or is it optional? Because I don't see any.
Regards,
Adelaide
Is the lack of a watermark likely to be a problem? As an experiment I 'lifted' an image off it's viewing page and saved it to my disk. I got a 27kb JPEG image file and a thief can't do much with that.
Did you click on "View Larger"? It is an 800x533 image. I think that could be useful to some people.
yeah, I just right clicked a nice sized image out of there.... it could easily be used in webpages... crisp and sharp... I don't think I'll be uploading there.... yes, I dumped the image, I only lifted it to check out what I would be putting at risk.... nice site, I could probably get some decent sales there for my artsy stuff.. but, I ain't giving it away to web builders. =tom
607
« on: November 06, 2007, 16:32 »
Hey, I know this is an old thread... but.... I couldn't find a recent discussion on it.... Anyone else seen a slow down at DT? I haven't had a sale there in 10 days now.... highly irregular for me... =tom
608
« on: November 06, 2007, 16:15 »
First time I've ever looked at it... I checked out some of the competition in natural landscapes... seems to be some very heavily enhanced work there. Pretty much like what I'd expect in a gallery setting as artwork. So heavy, I know it wouldn't be accepted in the likes of SS, IS and others that shoot down so readily for that reason. I like the look, but I've tried to submit stuff like that and get rejected... "over filtered" "over enhanced".. etc. If it werent for this watermark issue, I might consider them with all the 'artsy' stuff I can't get accepted elsewhere. -tom
609
« on: November 04, 2007, 13:44 »
Its a real problem for those of us who live in other countries (which is why the US Government is allowing it to happen).
You don't think this effects Americans too?
amen.
610
« on: November 04, 2007, 09:14 »
deleted my comment.  and it was supporting hatman's comment.
611
« on: November 04, 2007, 08:55 »
Rated Pixart's, Patrickrp's and Ldambies' today. (is Patrick from here?)
Adelaide
Have we figured out if Patrick is one of the gang here?? He has covered me a couple of times and I returned the courtesy today... I wanted to send a comment to LO about one of his pix I really liked, "stone bay". I thought it was a great shot, but that 'annoying watermark'... in this case was really annoying! In my opinion it was in the absolute worst place in Patricks pic. Other outfits give the photog the ability to move watermarks around the image to where we think it is the least obstructive. This is not the first time I've seen this at LO. Just a thought, not trying to beat up on Bryan and the gang. oh.. and if you're here Patrick, let us know.  -tom
612
« on: November 04, 2007, 08:22 »
I haven't played for a while. Here's mine
Man, not to start this all up again, but.. Leaf, except for that annoying watermark in the corner which could be taken out in about 15 seconds... I can't see any other marks on this pic... .. nice pic though!! I'll cover it right now. -tom
613
« on: November 02, 2007, 23:12 »
Done. My next (after a long wait in the submission queue):
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/4959204
Regards, Adelaide
Maria, got'cha covered! Nice shot as well. You have a great collection of 'gift' shots there!! -tom P.S. okay, I started hitting you all once again for November. Got several tonight, will be doing several every night until I get you all! And once again I say... some nice work out there!! We have a great batch of photogs/artists here!!
614
« on: November 02, 2007, 23:10 »
Madelaide, youve got it.
Heres mine, who wanna be the first one in comment one of my pics?
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/5095203
Conrad, this is a great shot! I covered your 'Broken Bridge' which I really liked!! -tom
615
« on: November 01, 2007, 17:54 »
I emailed support last week about it. I thought it was a problem with my account back then. Now it seems it's something 'new and improved' on the site?? You can't tell what pictures sold!! Frustrating... and I'm falling behind in tracking my sales..... not a peep out of support!! Now I'm getting a little ticked off. -tom
616
« on: November 01, 2007, 17:37 »
...........That's what bugs me most.
No consistency at all. ................
Ah, there's that word. Consistency. I think that's what is frustrating for most folks ...and not just on SS, really most agencies. Perfect example ( I won't say who). Last saturday I submit a photo of a small cottage in the midst of a formal garden. Photo accepted... and... SOLD ONCE ALREADY!Tuesday I submit another one of 5 I have in the series... photo rejected. why? Not stock material, low sales potential. Insert large question mark in a bubble over my head. Consistency. They were essentially the same picture. One was vertical one horizontal. Go figure. I don't get nuts about rejections. As someone said above... if I can't sell it here, I'll sell it there. I've had plenty of pictures rejected by one agency, posted them on another and there, make a buck on them on a regular basis. Ain't no biggie... But yeah, on most sites.... there is absolutely NO consistency. -tom
618
« on: October 31, 2007, 16:49 »
25/44 approved. Not too bad for StockXpert. Although, the rejection reason doesn't make sense for one. 
Color fringe on a grayscale image?
There's got to be a book in all this... "Outlandish Rejections"... put 'em all together, would be some pretty funny reading... you know, put the picture there, then the rejection.... Could have different chapters for different rejections... there you go, nice book deal for someone..... ....'cept probably only sell a hundred or so... and the bulk of them to folks here.. LOL LOL -tom
619
« on: October 31, 2007, 16:44 »
Do you know any other way to see which of your photo's sold for a day (or week)? (don't want to go though all) you can't sort them on download date...
http://www.stockxpert.com/balance.phtml
regards,
Bjorn
Amen, to that.... I emailed them a couple days ago, I thought it was just a glitch in my account.. Yeah, I'm selling and I track what photos sold daily on all my sites .... and now, have no clue what sold at StockXpert, just got a dollar total... BTW... got NO reply from support or even a "thanks for the question we'll get back to you". Heck, I don't even know if cust support got the email... Hope it's corrected soon, I don't have the time to play catch up with my accounting... Not a good system. -tom
620
« on: October 30, 2007, 17:26 »
Here's another of mine
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/5030328/sprinter_in_blocks
Michealo... I covered your "Hot Rod by Night" earlier in the month. Great pic!! I am pretty sure I covered everyone in the thread at least once... will go through again, new month, new comments. -tom ("trac" on LO)
621
« on: October 30, 2007, 03:26 »
Don't try to figure it, rosta, you will only hurt your head... LOL I've found it easier to understand quantum physics.... -tom
622
« on: October 30, 2007, 03:22 »
For me... the only lagger is LO... I'm at 11 days at the moment and counting... SS, I'm usually getting done in less than 24 hours... IS comes in two batches... first in a few days, the rest about 7 days, everyone else nothing unreasonable... however BigStock has been running really long lately too. -tom
623
« on: October 29, 2007, 18:04 »
Usually as soon as I hit the magic number...
624
« on: October 25, 2007, 16:44 »
I've been able to find my work in use in many areas. Some I found by accident just surfing under tittles of the photos... of course, many I found thru Fotolia, which is the ONE thing I loved about FT!! I wish all sites would advise us of our customers.
625
« on: October 24, 2007, 17:28 »
I hope to see more activity here. This is exactly what I need, I'm ready to expand a couple more sites. I will be very interested in all opinions. leaf.... I tend to agree with you. The poll would at least give a 'snapshot' on these lesser known and newer sites!! -tom
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
