|
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 - Mantis
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 219
626
« on: November 08, 2017, 09:15 »
I opted out.
Interesting that i do not even see that option. I dont even see that program listed in my preferences. So is it by invite aand those invited must opt out?
627
« on: November 08, 2017, 08:18 »
Things are slow at CanStockPhoto but I usually manage to pull $20 a month, sometimes $30. This month I haven't even broken $3 yet. I have about 3800 images there.
628
« on: November 07, 2017, 21:52 »
Microstock total Adobe not bad. SS not all that!. DP. brilliant close to 4 figures. Traditional-agencies close to 6K they totally outshine Micro-stock! and I would probably do wise in deleting some 6000 files from micro and shove them into the traditional agencies as RF's.
4000 dollar in depositi photos...i stopped reading at this point.
not even if you show me the bill
. the rest come forward.
"Close to 4 figures" = $900 something.
Or $90.00 something 
629
« on: November 07, 2017, 21:51 »
Bit early to write it off. Sounds pretty bad on the face of it, but if it means clips are ten times cheaper, for example... but you get twenty times more sales, then it's maybe not all that bad. I will reserve judgement for now.
Thats the wishful thinking that lures people into this kind of a bad idea, but its never in any case i can recall led to more sales. Only one sided.
630
« on: November 07, 2017, 19:38 »
Once any file is uploaded they are always at risk. Some sites like Deposit Photos got caught red handed continuing to sell assets even after they were deleted....well deactivated. At DP you don't actually delete, they only deactivate. I would say that most would delete your work but not all. The licensing also might also dictate their availability to certain customers for a period of time. So while those clips may not be available to any customer they might be in a lightbox and remain available to that customer until that asset is purchased or removed from the lightbox. Others who may have purchased your work might want to renew a license and you will see a sale from an already deleted clip. The fine print of the contributor agreement for each site is your starting point. In a nutshell, most will just delete the clips.
631
« on: November 07, 2017, 08:54 »
Very slow every where but SS is appalling
On Saturday I had my first zero day in 10 years on SS. Regular downloads have been declining significantly in the past 1-2 years but I have been saved mostly by SOD and video. But overall volume of downloads has tanked and I finally got a skunk.
632
« on: November 05, 2017, 09:27 »
Brightontl, I know that you think that I am a Lightroom hater 
But I really love these new features!
---
But I don't understand why they put the general "Dehaze" under "Effects"
I think that the logical place for it is with Clarity/Vibrance/Saturation
(Ah, I really hate Adobe when they do things like this!)
Perfectly agree: I could never understand why Dehaze is hidden away in the last panel, while it should be next to Clarity and Vibrance.
Dehaze is a tool that I use a lot and it is a waste of time to retrieve it.
Please note that in the new cloud version, the CC, the tool has been moved into a better position, although not yet the correct one.
So, in a few years we might dream of a Dehaze tool next to Clarity, for a better world :-)
Same in Photoshop. Dehaze is not in the main adjustment panel, buried elsewhere.
633
« on: November 04, 2017, 20:38 »
Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.
How long will that take?
Plenty of people upload to lots of sites.
iStock seems to piss off loads of people, but how much has that affected uploads?
So I suspect SS will continue to get good pix for a long time yet.
Even if there are fewer good contributions, remember it does still have 150m images.
Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors.
Getting pricing and payment packages right to retain customers and make them spend more are much more important than worrying about contributors.
Correct. They have already proven that supply is not a strategic gap. Every business must look at those areas that drive revenue that satisfies customer needs. Product extensions such as Offset are one of the several ways they attract a specific customer base. To pull this kind of thing off they must have ample content. They have that. Let's be honest. The only role contributors currently play is how much they can peel back our commissions to boost margins. The reduction of EL royalties is but one example I can provide. In the end, it is what product/service offering can SS leverage to keep winning. They know most contributors have a strong tolerance for royalty hits because the game is either pull everything in protest or not. Most don't, and probably for good reason...personal reasons, but good reasons nonetheless.
But there has to be a breaking point, surely? Eventually, if you pay peanuts, you will only end up with monkeys.
What is peanuts in the USA is a lot of money in other countries, of example. Breaking points will vary by each individual contributor and that breaking point will vary based on ones financial needs and tolerance for getting kicked in the sack. There are a lot of "Iron Balls McGynte's" out there, far more than there are "cotton ball jones's".
634
« on: November 04, 2017, 18:24 »
I deleted it. That last time they sent a survey I took it four times. If you clear your cookies, it lets you take it over and over, unless they figured that out. But nothing positive for the contributor was done based on the last survey, so I didn't waste my time on this new survey.
635
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:22 »
Dear Contributors, Im Eric, I head the team that secures content for 123RF. Thank you for being supportive of our efforts all these years. As some of you may know, we acquired Pixlr back in April 2017. With the acquisition of Pixlr, we move closer to our groups vision to create a Creative Ecosystem thats powered by design, creativity and constant technological innovation. Our aim is to help everyone (creatives, the-not-so creative and businesses) stay relevant and thrive together in this age of the creative economy. Were on the brink of yet another exciting project! Wed like to invite you to be a Founding Member Contributor and take part in its creation. With this new platform, wed like to build a creative community that shares and provide their footage to be used under a Creative Commons Zero (CC0) licence. Whats in it for you? :- 1. This platform will run on a donation basis. a. Downloaders may donate any amount to you as an appreciation of your contribution to the community. b. 100% of the proceeds will go to you. 2. As for now, our new site is still in the midst of development, however, we would like to register your interest in this project. a. We aim to build video creation tools that everybody can use as part of the sites unique offering and in the longer term, we will mix in some monetization ideas. b. Of course, youll be a part of that too! Interested to back this project? Fill up the form below. Link : https://eric123rf.typeform.com/to/rY3rmb ( https://eric123rf.typeform.com/to/rY3rm) Look at where they are taking stock. Share in optional donations. Holy SH!T.
636
« on: November 03, 2017, 08:14 »
So everyone doing well on SS again as it seems. I am still 50% down on the months before my portfolio crashed. All other agencies are insignificant as well. Overall decline. But I am not adding any images, no time, no motivation.
No. $12 days with almost 5k assets is not good.
637
« on: November 02, 2017, 18:53 »
Where does one opt out of this?
I think it's by invite only at this time.
638
« on: November 02, 2017, 08:02 »
Ultimately, it's unsustainable for both in the long term. Contributors will only stay while it is worth it financially. Shutterstock will lose when all their quality contributors bail and they are left with just the holiday snaps and icons.
How long will that take?
Plenty of people upload to lots of sites.
iStock seems to piss off loads of people, but how much has that affected uploads?
So I suspect SS will continue to get good pix for a long time yet.
Even if there are fewer good contributions, remember it does still have 150m images.
Most customers, I suspect, aren't looking for amazing images. They're looking for competent images to fill space. They're much easier to satisfy than contributors.
Getting pricing and payment packages right to retain customers and make them spend more are much more important than worrying about contributors.
Correct. They have already proven that supply is not a strategic gap. Every business must look at those areas that drive revenue that satisfies customer needs. Product extensions such as Offset are one of the several ways they attract a specific customer base. To pull this kind of thing off they must have ample content. They have that. Let's be honest. The only role contributors currently play is how much they can peel back our commissions to boost margins. The reduction of EL royalties is but one example I can provide. In the end, it is what product/service offering can SS leverage to keep winning. They know most contributors have a strong tolerance for royalty hits because the game is either pull everything in protest or not. Most don't, and probably for good reason...personal reasons, but good reasons nonetheless.
639
« on: November 02, 2017, 07:46 »
DP. brilliant close to 4 figures.
That's incredible. I made $50, lol.
Maybe he made 4 "Mantis" figures 
LOL good one.
640
« on: November 01, 2017, 18:29 »
Nice. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Very helpful.
641
« on: November 01, 2017, 18:17 »
4 figures on SS, but below expectations.
Interesting to observe that SS is only accounting for 30% of my total revenue, down from more than 50%, not very long time ago.
$.0000 or $0.000 or $00.00 or $000.0 or $0000? LOL just joking. But technically mine was five figures
642
« on: October 31, 2017, 08:29 »
I find that with each update, it becomes more bloated and slower. Maybe it's my computer getting older, but I think many new features could be sacrificed for speed.
Very much agree. Or presumably they could be made optional plug-ins.
I agree as well. I have a workflow with specific tools I frequently use. I don't need all the other bells and whistles. Would be nice if you could deactivate certain functionality and only have the engine load those things you need, or specific modules. I know, easier said than done, but speed is important for me.
643
« on: October 31, 2017, 08:26 »
Classic mistake.
If you find gold in the mountains, don't tell everyone at the tavern.
You DO tell everyone....that gold is 200 miles in the opposite direction!  No no, not VB, it's VH 200 miles that way!
644
« on: October 28, 2017, 12:23 »
they always told me that you have to send a hard drive to them with HD mov files.
They ended that.
645
« on: October 27, 2017, 22:28 »
They no longer accept video. They are out of that game. They left what they had online but no longer accept footage.
646
« on: October 26, 2017, 07:41 »
Today's' naive idealist is tomorrow's big corporation...google, apple, facebook.......I suspect modern technology makes the tendency to monopolies easier.
But technology also destroys monopolies more easily.
While I am not a techie, this topic is interesting to me, even though bitcoin, cryptocurrency, etc. may not be ready for prime time. We are really discussing a potential future way of conducting business. To namussi's point, remember Blockbuster and Netflix? Blockbuster is no more. Why? Netflix chased technology that Blockbuster thought would never catch on, so they scoffed at Netflix's strategy. Game over for Blockbuster.
647
« on: October 26, 2017, 07:37 »
I don't agree that the model is necessarily any worse than the standard subs model, where the agency and contributor are in competition. The agency only makes a profit if the buyer doesn't use his allocated sub downloads, the buyer only makes a profit if he does.
Doesn't videoblocks own much of the content and not pay royalties on that?
Yes. They have a wholly owned section whereby paid subscribers can download clips at no extra cost. If they don't find what they want, they can go into the contributor clip pool and purchase from there, but at $49 for HD (as opposed to $79). Contributors keep most of that $49 (taxes, etc.).
648
« on: October 25, 2017, 08:22 »
Nice review. Thanks for putting that together.
649
« on: October 22, 2017, 20:04 »
Mantis, not my first choice in codecs but photo jpeg does seem to be there in FCP.
Is that in Compressor? I do not see it in my FCPX and on Apple's website they say that these are the supported export codecs.
650
« on: October 22, 2017, 16:22 »
Here is the Petapixel link with demos of their new Luminosity/Color masking feature:
https://petapixel.com/2017/10/18/bye-bye-lightroom-hello-lightroom-cc-faster-lightroom-classic/
It is definitely interresting to have such option directly on RAW files.
Both of which are already in Capture One Pro, which is what I've switched to, as part of their local adjustment layers
I downloaded C1 pro trial version, but I'm unable to find the luminosity mask feature. I couldn't find any tutorials related to it. Can you please indicate where is this feature hidden?
^ 6.12, and always worked perfectly.
I was just expecting something faster, but it is the exact contrary 
Some operations like importing are maybe faster (not sure) but this is not where I need the application to be faster; I need it to be faster when using the develop module.
(Thinking to go back with time machine)
https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/lightroom-cc-vs-lightroom-classic/
Have you tried to disable the GPU option? I remember this was a problem some time ago. If your video card is not powerful enough, you can be better off by just using the just the processor.
I have a decently expensive video card and my develop module is visibly faster, while the library module is significantly faster.
I have made the upgrade to Lightroom Classic.
I must say that I am not happy at all!
Adobe has made a very bad work this time: all is very very slow.
Not only me by the way: https://forums.adobe.com/message/9905229#9905229
Also a lot of complaints on Photoshop CC 2018. Very slow and clunky and brushes like the Healing Brush take 10 or more seconds to work.
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/healing-and-spot-healing-brush-lag
I tested the healing brush. It is no different than before, instantaneous, nothing like the video presented.
Same here.
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 30 31 ... 219
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
