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 - ichiro17
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33
651
« on: September 15, 2006, 09:48 »
This and other independent sites should work towards a politically correct freedom of speech. No need to attack with vulgarities and profanities. Just simple acknowledgements of whats going on and how you feel about it. Shady, shifty and weird business practices can be an indication of whats to come and it can save people a TON of time and money and hassle and these forums are a place where people can find out if its worth it. As well, if owners of these backyard microstocks are serious they will read the posts and work with the people to make them better. It serves as a means of evolution because if you have a bad name no one will trust you. But if you work with people you get a better shot.
I would wish that LO would start marketing because I'm stuck on $81.00 forever and I just want a payout.
And no one will ever be sure if a site is a fraud because they can always come back and say we had a failure or our site doesn't work properly because of a virus or something, but through this behaviour you can persuade people to not upload until they get their act together. Its important to weed out the bad companies so that the competition becomes top notch and those who pay for the photos trust the industry.
652
« on: September 11, 2006, 07:13 »
September has brought nothing in terms of any evidence to substantiate the hype....for me at least. Its gonna be an average month at best and SS has slowed to a halt. I used to get downloads daily now I'm struggling to get any. I'm really not sure why but its not cool. I coudl have had a payout if it was like August but now I'm sad.
653
« on: August 31, 2006, 14:10 »
Hi Rinder,
Glad you could join this site.
Those 12 were in April. The site has picked up now that I have about 200 on there, but I still don't like it as it has gone down the toilet in general.
I hope to hear more from you on this site as your wisdom would be nice to learn from.
654
« on: August 26, 2006, 23:52 »
Totally agree with the shop.
If that happens, then my previous comments regarding the tokens and the site will come around 180 and it will be more positive in my opinion. As long as the rewards are a decent price like it doesn't convert 4000 tokens for a polarizer or something like that....
655
« on: August 26, 2006, 15:36 »
A gift is only good if it is useful and has some meaning. These tokens are useless and have no meaning to those who can't use them. Let me know when you are having a shower and I'll get you a toaster. Then we'll see how you feel.
The reason LO is giving tokens and not allowing you to convert is so that they can politely say "thanks for uploading here's something you can't use". If I got a compost heap for my birthday I'd be pretty pissed off. These tokens are like getting a compost heap. SOmetimes, nothing is better than something. So this goodwill gesture is more insulting than anythign else.
Why not do a Fotolia and give cash for photos? The more logical thing? The only reason they give tokens is because they know that a HUGE percentage of people don't have any desire to download images of others, so they really know they are giving away free coins that will most likely never be used.
At this point in time, your positive attitude is great, but please don't be naive, because it tends to blind you from the overall picture.
656
« on: August 26, 2006, 15:29 »
Hi Shutterlady,
I'd like to say that its always good to see entrepreneurs and the world needs more of them. So good luck with your quest with your agency.
I am not going to join for many reasons.
I'm too lazy to upload. Don't want to go through those procedures.
I'm not going to wait for sites to get downloads. I should have balked on LuckyOliver and not uploaded but I caved in and let my curiousness get ahead of me. So now I'm gonna be stuck "waiting" for the LO team to get sales and marketing going. Don't want to do that again.
Legal issues: Copyright, copy protection...etc.
Sheer confusion: too many sites = too much confusion
The return on 'new' and 'up and coming' sites is just too low. My new motto is: prove to me you got the sales and I will join. StockXpert was doing great so I wanted to try it and was eager but since has died off. Tested and true ...tested and true is the way to go right now
Please don't take that personally, I'm in the process of cutting down my current sites that I submit too. FP, and BS have recently been shaved off and now I only upload to StockXpert, FT, DT, IS, SS and maybe LO.
Good luck with your venture.
657
« on: August 24, 2006, 12:28 »
Right on Prof.
Right on.
No one wants to be a carney, or an oliver, or a half-wit. And if you buy into the carney/oliver propaganda, you tend to be viewed as a half-wit. They are differentiating themselves on stupid things like this, where the model is exactly the same as everyone else. Nothing special, just a brown site with pictures surrounded by other shades of brown. Unless my monitor is not calibrated. Then its another colour with many shades of the same colour.
I think they have a great upload system. The recent reviews seem a bit off, but the system is great. I've already decided that its time for me to stop uploading to a few sites due to poor performance - Featurepics, BigStock are the two for now.
Their way of saying thank you - those stupid useless tokens - should be there way of saying "here's 30 cents for contributing" and Bryan's previous post was incredibly evasive of the call to convert those tokens to some useful coin.
I will upload a bit more and then I will see how it goes after a long hiatus from uploading. If things change, then sure, otherwise "me out"....I pinkyswear.
Like Amanda from IStock pointed out, contributing to too many sites makes it very difficult to control your images. It also is time consuming. So, that sparked me to really look at who's producing and who isn't. And those that don't can go - no matter how amazing their uploading is. Another thing is that these sites may be knew and only God knows what they do with your photos off the site - I'm not accusing anyone but suspicious sites like TotallyPhotos and others tend to scare me. The 80 cents in 6 months of earnings and time that I save from not uploading to these sites is probably going to make me better off than the small little rewards that I would get otherwise.
658
« on: August 24, 2006, 09:06 »
Noise Ninja, Photoshop CS2 Adobe Camera Raw PixVue WS_FTP
I think thats it.
659
« on: August 24, 2006, 08:14 »
LO is also getting really picky and annoying, in my opinion. I submitted a batch of files (about 40 or so) that 90% were accepted by StockXpert and SS and FT and DT but LO decided to be really bitchy about it and reject all but 7 for sharpness issues. If StockXpert and SS have no issues with them (one was rejected for noise but was accepted by SS without issue) this is wack...for lack of a better expression.
-gareri
660
« on: August 22, 2006, 21:10 »
Its NOT about the rejection ratio, its about having photos downloaded on FP that aren't on any other sites and only those photos downloaded, none that are on other sites thats interesting.
661
« on: August 22, 2006, 08:44 »
I have come across an interesting find as in that FeaturePics accepts photos that most other places don't. I have the same photos plus those that they accept on FP as I do on SS and others (minus the rejected ones). My only sales on FP are those pictures not found anywhere else. I think thats pretty interesting in that uploading all my rejects there would be more time efficient  Anyone else find that?
662
« on: August 21, 2006, 09:06 »
I'm glad no offense was taken. I don't want to harass or make anyone feel uncomfortable in the community like some people have on SS forums (hehehe and have been censored from everywhere).
I think that LO should be investing in the community of photographers that will make their product work well for them. I htink that is the best way to go and this token for others but not for me program just doesn't cut it. We all would like the money more than the other guy and Fotolia saw this (unfortunately I missed out on that) but its worked wonders for them - I sound like a broken record -
Where in the world is Bryan? lol - reminds me of something........
663
« on: August 21, 2006, 07:54 »
In response to Boylet:
Not a fan of 'fake' traffic. There are a few steps that need to be taken to make the site work, so I would hope that they do it that way. I know you're just trying to justify what they are doing, so this is not an attack on your argument. I just think they are better off letting us cash them in.
664
« on: August 18, 2006, 08:08 »
Hopefully Bryan is watching and reading because from the beginning I thought this token program was hogwash. Besides, if they are going to pay out the 30 cents anyways, why not pay it to the guy thats building their library and helping them out....lets not forget something: They would and will be no where without us, the photographer
Fotolia paid out money and its gotten them very far. And they paid out more too. So why give 30 cents to someone else when you can reward the loyalty of the photographer instead of sending out e-mails saying not to download your own photos or those of friends or whatnot.
Either way, it shouldn't matter for LO, because the same amount of cash flow outwards will occur.
The BALL is in your court LO
665
« on: August 17, 2006, 21:32 »
As an uploading 'artist' (quotations because well...) I don't really care too much about 'community action' or whatever it is they call it. I'd rather have the 30 cents in my pocket instead of downloading someone else's photos and I get nothing but a photo that I can't really use for anything because I'm not a designer. So how about if LO starts handing out credits and allowing us to convert them to coin....doesn't have to be 30 cents, could be 20 cents per photo....otherwise the point of these stupid tokens is lost on me
666
« on: August 16, 2006, 08:13 »
I tend to give up when they say poor lighting etc because every other agency for me accepts it and then its poor lighting or incorrect exposure for them. Unfortunately thats the way the ball bounces Not sure how to help although I'd love to know what to do to avoid that stupid generic rejection
667
« on: August 14, 2006, 11:06 »
Another interesting observation is that 123RF is picking up again. This is all very weird....or so it seems.
668
« on: August 14, 2006, 09:22 »
CJ makes a good point, but Phildate is a very large player and even he is feeling the effects. His portfolio is fabulous and its all about peopleshots - which apparently (I have none so I don't know) sell everywhere.
669
« on: August 14, 2006, 09:20 »
I think that if Bryan is listening, he should take this into serious consideration as I have thought it over:
1. Limit the number of photographers - this is important as the more they accept photos, the better their site will be BUT if there are 40 000 photogs are 4 designers, you have a problem - which is exemplified by FT - 1,000,000+ pictures, slow/burst sales (nothing consistent). That is the most annoying thing in the world.
2. Don't change the uploader - its amazing. So easy. I wish everyone else made it that easy.
3. Get marketing.
My main point is the photographers. No one wins if there are too many people crowding it out. It states that LO is a community, so the idea would be to look out of the photographers and the designers together in a sustainable fashion - accepting everyone isn't sustainable, and it will definitely deter me from uploading more.
On that note I should mention that I'm not uploading to Fotolia as much for that reason. Other than that, it provides for less that 6% of my total overall earnings from stock.
That is my take.
Hopefully it is worth reading.
670
« on: August 14, 2006, 08:52 »
All that hype at the beginning about StockXpert is now gone and its settled into the lower-middle tier of micro agencies. In my opinion anyway. Reason being is that I have not had a sale in over a month and I have almost 150 images online. Every other agency (including Bigstock) performs better and most with smaller portfolios and such. Is anyone else finding this? Is anyone else starting to believe that the major players are the 'only' serious players?
671
« on: August 13, 2006, 10:25 »
What kind of lens do you suggest to use for the air show?
672
« on: August 11, 2006, 08:56 »
Hello again,
I was just wondering what would be the appropriate way (and correct way) to shoot planes at an air show. Most likely in the sky, the sky will be much brighter than the planes (I'm assuming) so I don't want to overexpose the sky or underexpose the planes.
Any suggestions?
673
« on: August 11, 2006, 08:52 »
Hello everyone...
So glad to see that traffic has really picked up here and its very interactive. I was just wondering what the uses of lightboxes are for those that create them and what happens if pictures from your lightboxes sell? Is it beneficial for me to create lightboxes with other people's images? How does this work? I'm not used to iStock just yet and this would be another step in acquainting myself with their system (so complicated). As well other people have put my images in their lightboxes...what does that mean?
Thanks again, have a good weekend,
-gareri
674
« on: August 10, 2006, 08:34 »
StockXpert is annoying. The "We're not looking for this" quote is total BS - When the do that for 68 out of 75 fairly decent images, its annoying
And...I am not making that many sales....so far NOTHING for August....disappointing
675
« on: August 07, 2006, 10:06 »
Toronto, Canada for me.
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|