|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 79
701
« on: February 16, 2016, 15:19 »
Your logic is just stupid. You really expect for reviewer to check all the photos that are submitted if they are already online. What would then review time be? Half a year?
That isn't so far fetched. It isn't anything the reviewer has to do. If images come through with the same filename or the same title, etc. why couldn't it be checked? Early on, other agencies used to do that. I would submit a horizontal and a vertical format of the same image, taken at the same time in the 2 different formats. The titles, desc and keywords were the same, just different formats, and one would get rejected as a duplicate. I started changing the titles to get them approved, but the technology is there. Whether they choose to use it is another story. And clearly some of the agencies choose not to. How many ways can you title a picture of marijuana? 
obviously there is a way.
many years ago dt started rejecting anything more than 2 similars.
702
« on: February 16, 2016, 14:19 »
No Jo Ann, I was with Fotolia for 8 years with 7000 images, and I did not get a warning/notice - not even an explanation.
Do you have any guesses why they closed your account?
She voiced an opinion on DPC that wasn't necessarily favorable to FOTOLIA so they retailiated by closing Ankyas account.
that is my first instinct, like joanne and canva. but this way is a bit crass. if you do business that i-spit-in-your-face attitude it can send a bad signal to everyone, like istock and sean locke and yuri. it would be easier to just flip the switch and make sure you get zero days until you get pissed-off and bugger-off on your own... like it can be going on with ss and some old-timers here. much like the way a forbes top corporation would do... quietly ask you to pack up and leave suddenly. sure, the office will be gossiping of why you suddenly left... but the whole world does not know that you suddenly decided to go for a better job... when in reality you could be out there selling organic veggies at a flea market because you just lost your CEO paying position and top floor office by doing something the company did not like.
703
« on: February 15, 2016, 17:45 »
Symzio is just replacing one boss (Oringer or Enache or...) with another - Robin. As it's Robin's baby, I can see why he views it as best, but that's not speaking from the contributor's point of view. As to "unified", I don't have a clue what that really amounts to. There's talk about contributor control - which they have over their own site - but over Symzio, that's Robin's. Symzio has "I can boot you out any time for any or no reason" wording that all the agencies have. There's no haven there, which is perhaps a reason why more people aren't hopping on.
true. what was the other site we used to have here??? the one that started off very well, until some ppl started giving it bad  that too started some kind of indie network , didn't it??? i am thinking of music..eg. prince, loreena mckeenan (if wrong spelling of her name,sorry).. etc how these musicians quit being pawns to the big recording tyrants like sony,etc.. and went on their own. i think U2 as well. how they manage today. of course, it's easier for these three musicians because they've already made millions before they were booted out. so did yuri and sean , i guess. pauliewalnuts said something too, of him going solo. maybe he can tune in here of how well he is doing. also, i read somewhere of how some ex-micro photographers have gone onto ebay to sell framed photos independently too. i don't remember where i read it, but they too have gone away from microstock, and at that time, sounded like they are doing well. at least i don't see them coming back to micro.
704
« on: February 15, 2016, 14:29 »
FOTOLIA account blocked without any reason NO clue as to why
I have a portfolio with more than 27,000 photos and work for them for over 10 years.
do not respond to emails.
here's the good news... read my lips... shutterstock. spammers welcome. just read the other thread on ss here re spammers they love spammers, esp if it is marijuana , apples, tomato,etc..
705
« on: February 15, 2016, 13:58 »
SS obviously didn't do much to keep Yuri. Istock kicked out Sean. Most of the few hundred you are talking about didn't join us in deactivation day or most of the other protests we have tried in the past. When the sites had much smaller collections, we did win a few battles but we failed to stop all of the big sites cutting commissions. If it isn't obvious by now that we need to try something more than a few people opting out or stopping uploading, I don't know when it will be.
the reality of generic business is just that !!! it does not matter if you are yuri or sean . both ppl i admire for their achievement. but put yourself in the market of generics... whether it is writing pop songs or playing churning rap music,etc.. it is not difficult to make those products. the buyers do not care if it is made in germany or made in ukraine or sold in chelsea or sold in the flea market. they only know that it is available everywhere, and if it is paying $1000 a shot or 28 cts a shot, you can be sure they will pay 28 cts. it is not like a product that cannot be copied eg gucci, or chivas or ferrari ,etc. if microstock is a business of unique photographs where only buyers of works by man ray or matthew brady etc or something that pirelli will insist on paying,etc.. that is different. proof is how many clones yuri and sean got as soon they everyone sees that they were selling like mcdonalds. this again is the problem when agencies show how many downloads a picture gets. it slant the buying in their favour , but also it attracts copyists. and once there is someone or a hundred copycats of yuri and sean... guess who become not so valuable??? who would buy a rolex or a fake rolex??? i would pay for the rolex. who would say, no way, i only want this stock photo with yuri or sean name on it. who really cares if yuri or sean name is not on it??? can you tell
microstock is like telemarketing...
that is the problem. that is the reality why ss or is when posed with a threat from yuri or sean to walk out the door...
they say, the exit is that way... don't hit your head on the way out!!!
706
« on: February 13, 2016, 20:51 »
the fashion / beauty /cosmetic business is not very protective
and very cut-throat.
it is similar to music where a bottle of beer or a case of six is all you get for playing in a club.
.. every girl and guy wants to be on the catwalk or be able to tell their friends/fiends they did a show for xxx or xxxx during xxx or xxx , even though most never really get paid for doing it.
many modeling agencies, (not Ford, of course, that's an exception), will also tell their wannabees
to stop working with other than their own photographers , once they sign with them.
it is also , as rinderhart say, very short shelf-lived, as most of these startups never last very last.
a good proof is to check out how many designers/ modeling agencies,etc are still there in a period of 6 years.
and to quote someone who used to be in the merchandising and fashion trade once told me, "always get cash before you deliver anything to anyone in this business"... (because, they disappear very fast).
707
« on: February 13, 2016, 18:46 »
I wouldn't worry about it too much, remember our friend here:
http://www.shutterstock.com/portfolio/search.mhtml?gallery_id=1256674&gallery_landing=1&page=1&safesearch=1&sort_method=newest
I try to keep my portfolio fresh and diversify as much as I can.
This guy is working hard, adding fresh stuff every single day 
The real hard worker, I have seen in lifetime.. Now I expect number to grow from 700k to 1.4M per week.
I wish I knew how much he's making.
I'd need to be stuffed full of the weed to keep motivated for what I assume are modest returns. BWDIK? Maybe that's what I should have been doing all along.
i must be lucky also with this guy around 4/5 marijuana pictures of mine are still in first SS page ahahhaahah
LOL, i guess we all have to get hold of a stash of marijuana and flood the "stock market" if we want to survive in this microstock business. only that if i do get to buy some marijuana and put them in my portfolio, i will have the cops bulldozing down my property for possession of illegal substance  and all that just to make 38 cts do you think it's worth it getting myself on a WANTED poster 
708
« on: February 13, 2016, 15:51 »
I'm bored of complaining, until we all get together and run our own site or buy a majority share in one of the sites, what can we do about it? Or we could all just use the few sites that pay 50% but that never happens. This is all our own fault, I'm sure we could be much better off but the vast majority of contributors still don't care.
Complaining is good. Squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Not always. If you're too squeaky you get the Vaseline.
LMAO... well said..!!! and any finger will do
709
« on: February 12, 2016, 13:44 »
From my personal experience, that's optimistic, but a few large sales can skew the average upwards. I'm finding that sale prices are generally coming down on Alamy, because buyers are threatening to go to micros if they don't get good deals. You can opt out of some of the lower paying sales, like the UK newspaper scheme or certain distribution deals, but that will cut your sales, as these buyers firstly see the opted in files, and not all of the UKNS or distribution sales are low value. Also, if RM, these buyers should pay every time they use it. However, they sometimes need to be chased up via contacting Alamy for re-use payments. Still, you could get 25c from a micro sub and they could re-use the file forever.
Historically, iS did better than Alamy than me for editorial files (different files on both sites, RF vs RM, so apples and oranges). However, now that iStock is becoming mostly a cheap subs site, that is changing fast, especially with files uploaded in the past couple of years.
Others will need to give you comparisons with other micros.
re my red out to your point above, but would it not profit the micro site to introduce a new editorial usage condition so both the agency and contributor profit from not letting the file be re-use forever , like you say??? forever is a long long long long time
710
« on: February 12, 2016, 13:41 »
One of the big sellers on Alamy has a career photojournalism background and doesn't ask for releases because of possible uses (Alamy requires releases to include sensitive use, though that is only stated in one place that I could find.)
Indeed, even if you had model releases, you couldn't get property releases for a lot of material which can be used editorially.
The uses are often in travel articles in magazines/newspapers, travel guides, educational textbooks etc.
good advice , Sue. times have changed , it used to be that editorials do not require releases. now as you pointed out, even PR are required. i think so too, as some countries even insist you buy a permit to enable tourists to shoot (at a museam, for example) , and even that, there is a note to say you cannot use it for other than personal use. still, there are lots of others places that is still free to shoot and used as editorial. but again, just because there is no sign saying you cannot, there could still be restrictions, eg. many arabic countries do not even allow you to point a camera in the direction of the presidential property , even from a distance. in that sense, it is alot to remember . which is why it is good to have the editorial reviewer curate to approve or reject, as many of us are not informed that globally.
711
« on: February 10, 2016, 14:33 »
new images need time to get traction and establish themselves. i still notice images emerge after a period of time. its also still possible to get bestsellers. and although some images have dropped off as most popular they still sell daily. some are still going after 3 years
yes, i see the same too. i think the new emergence come from undiscovered . it is good because it shows that ss is still working hard to churn some of the inactive images in our portfolio, unlike dt that just keeps bugging you with no sale for 3 yrs emails which i think is absurd. it is dt which is creating this no sales by not doing anything to improve sales ... no surprise their placement on the right column here keeps sinking like a stone. ss OTOH keeps finding ways to get you sales, even though the big ones seems to be absent... but i keep optimism because ss is the only one we have.
712
« on: February 10, 2016, 13:30 »
and in reply to new images flooding ... yes, although new images flood your work, ... your new images also is visible to everyone. and if your new images get dl on the first sighting, and continue to be dl-ed... you can be sure that is going to be your next regular seller as it is given front page top view. again, only works with ss. so, love or hate ss, at least, it is working in our favour if we keep producing buyable images regularly. flooding the site does not work, as you see with mr. marijuana. he only makes money from free advertising
713
« on: February 10, 2016, 13:26 »
There must be a heavy bias in the search for old images because they sell much better than new ones. If they ever put the new images at the top of the search, there will be no way to make money there.
I thought the problem was new images pushing off the old images. That's what people write?
I think new get front page until they prove downloads, views, or move to the back. I can see my most downloaded pictures are on front pages. Old or new. Photos get ranked and survive on their own, not some fake sort like some people claim. Of course, mine should all be first page because I'm the best. Everybody wants theirs on first page. It can't be,
They blame the search for being flawed, or special people get better places and that old images are being pushed back, or new images can't get traction and fail. Good photos will get ranked where they deserve to be, in time.
spot on both commentors !!! when sean locke said in the other thread of "1 good image or 1000 bad image" making money for you, he is not wrong. but this only works with ss, as a top seller will always be a top seller because as you both say, it is given top rank and first page view. in my own case too, this is right. my top seller sells all the time, it is more or less my rescue boat in a month of low single large 28,80,102 sales. with dt etc, this is not so, as they i think keep changing search placement until even your best seller dies from either being top rank and too expensive or just outrank by ppl who write blogs with dt... as i remember they say that writing blogs on dt grant you favourable placement on search. LOL, what has that to do with quality of your image at least in this case, ss is still the only one we can count on.
714
« on: February 10, 2016, 12:52 »
I think this is an important deal, it increases their "Weight" in the editorial industry and makes it clear they can provide more than just creative stock.
Companies that need a lot of editorial content also buy lots of creative stock alongside it. Shutterstock becomes a real "one stop shop" for customers that need new content every day.
That is the one advantage Getty always had, their strong editorial section, which gives them loyal news agencies and large media houses as customers.
Adobe hasnt even started to pursue the editorial market, so this gives SS a real edge.
i was thinking of thst too when i first read that BFA is editorial . right now, who is the best seller in editorial??? i think getty is. so with this, it could direct buyers of editorial to ss which before this, they never saw ss as a major supplier of editorials. in fact, many agencies do not supply editorials because they perharps think it is getty's domain. except, not every editorial photographer works for getty. so instead of seeing it as yet another potent our loss, let's see it as ss effort to cut in to a stake of what is getty's empire. if so, it would come to our benefit. imagine if i were ss , i would think that for a while now, we have been putting pressure on our suppliers , and we could drive them all away to adobe. so, you ask how we can stop cutting contributors' share and appease with their anger of late,.. maybe this is how.
715
« on: February 10, 2016, 01:25 »
To the extent that SS becomes stronger as a company - and more profitable - it might reduce pressure on them to loot contributor share of the buyer payments. If they can beat Adobe via these types of partnerships, perhaps they don't engage in a destructive price war.
well, then let's look at it from this postive lateral thought ie if this new alliance can take the stress of ss microstock business from needing to squeeze the contributors' share dry, and prevent a destructive price war. it's like the camera producers, where they make their profit from other means and that is why they never budge on cutting prices on flash units, battery, etc. we have to start thinking positive for once, or else as they say in the Laws of Attraction... you get what you think will happen.
716
« on: February 09, 2016, 21:16 »
sorry if i sound not in the news for BFA . joanne , what does this mean to us regular ss contributors??? how will it impact us in terms of better or worse downloads and earnings? from how i understand my little insight of the deal, would it only mean those photographers who have access to the red carpet are going to be affected. but for the rest of us, how would this affect us
717
« on: February 08, 2016, 17:52 »
I saw thousands of posts here on the forum, but it is rare for people to talk about their incomes, because afraid to say?
As I said, I have 75 photos in SS, they render me only an average of $ 3.00 or $ 5.00 per month.
And you, how many photos have and what your monthly income?
Just one observation: >$1/photo/month is not uncommon (for SS alone). So, you could make much more than $3-$5/month with quality stuff.
$1/photo/month @ Shutterstock. I wish!
You forgot to quote: with quality stuff . I never said it is the rule. I only said it is not uncommon.
yes, that is a good base , what zero talent says... red words quality
718
« on: February 07, 2016, 21:13 »
it is a pointless question as one can have 500 images and another has 5000 and the other 50000
and they might earn the same monthly.
only thing you will need to do is to stop trying to figure out how much we make,
and concentrate on producing as many new work as you can each week.
in another thread, top seller sean locke said this when someone asks how many do you need to make money, his answer was,
"1 very good photo or 10,000 bad photos".
719
« on: February 07, 2016, 15:25 »
perharps you go to shutterstock and search with keywords...
underwear
man
...
oor whatever is going to help you find the variations of the kind of picture you need.
perharps, others here with better keywording skills than me could come in here to give you the best keywords to use in your search.
the background is disheveled house is the only thing you may have trouble finding ...
both in the same image.
you probably have to find an isolated man in underwear
and then layer it to a picture of the house.
again, hope someone else here will help you with it. or go to ss forum and ask the same thing.
720
« on: February 07, 2016, 14:33 »
Sometimes I think the reviewer was high and I resubmit.
maybe! after approving one thousand marijuana pictures in a row, it definitely can OD your eyes
721
« on: February 06, 2016, 15:26 »
specifically speaking, the US$ rose in spite of the oil situation, i think it rose from late january,
to today. euro fell due to the weakness of their situation. for specifics, you can check your bank's financial exchange day to day or minute to minute news on foreign exchange or the directions of the US dollar and the weakness of the Euro.
722
« on: February 06, 2016, 15:14 »
foreign exchange fluctuate every day, even by the hour, buying or selling...
the exchange is based on the time of transaction.
to have more control of how much you get, the only way to do it is to open an account in US dollars so you receive it from ss in US$. there you sit the funds till your local currency exchange rate goes down so your US $ will give you more. there can be a fluctation of little or large, depending on the international exchange rate, and even among financial corporations, it still fluctates like credit card, payoneer, paypal,etc.
since ss is used to paying us regularly, i doubt if it is a mistake.
723
« on: February 06, 2016, 14:03 »
hmm, interesting did this just happened??? if so, i am interested to know if there is a change to the reviewing at ss . if ss is back to normal proper reviewing, then maybe just maybe the rogue reviewer is sacked or transfered to bigstock.
let's wait for some ss contributors to tell us if last week's review at ss is back to normal. or worse news that the rogue reviewer has won another post to get more work at bigstock too. if red fact #2 is true, then it's really dog crap hell for both uploading to ss and bs b*llsh*t !!!
724
« on: February 03, 2016, 18:24 »
yes, there is a market for such images, but as sean locke says sums it up quite explicitly I wouldn't sell that kind of thing as stock. They will always be misused, and you might end up like this:
http://petapixel.com/2015/01/11/help-sued-nearly-500000-model-photographed/
I'm not sure why anyone would want a fine art print from the boudoir session of someone they don't know. Where are you going to hang something like that?
it is not only a big risk to get such portfolio in microstock, but not a very wise one. if you can really do that very well, you would have no problem do it locally... as once again, sean locke says it... who would want to hang a picture of some stranger in their house boudoir style studio shots are usually popular with intimate and open-minded couples for each other, but not something someone would want to have it on fb, www, etc. not unless you want to get sued
725
« on: February 03, 2016, 18:14 »
who writes these stupid announcements? 10 percent the crooks.
They (another example is ss) think we are idiots we are just cashcows for them.
Well tens of thousands of people go along with this stuff so I guess they're useful idiots.
I'm having Deja Vu again. Where have I heard this before? "Let us give your stiff away for free
...snip
One of these days all of this subscription sh*t is going to burn to a flaming halt.
...snip
Isock's pitch sums it up. "Explore millions of royalty-free images, illustrations, videos, and music clips at ridiculously great prices" no price.
is this no coincidence that both istock and canstock are based in canada??? is canada where there is a mentality "to give everything away for nothing" 25 cents for an 8x10 print is "compensation"? Maybe... on Bizarro Earth. On my planet, it's called other things.
I hadn't sold anything on FAA for a while. But today, I sold 3 sizeable prints and made about $130.
i think 500px started the right way too $120 commission, but somewhere along the way , they decided to become a social media like fb with likes, and members just wannabee collecting thumbsup and pokes and a trillion friends with comments like " great port, come look at me portfolio and give me a nice wow " i am not in it for the money-brigade...
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
