|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 51
701
« on: April 26, 2007, 05:43 »
Yet Another  . Picture of an LCD monitor:
http://www.dreamstime.com/monitor-image2099162#sgk
Keywords:
1950s american apple business clicks clothing communications computers conference crystal desk desktop digital digitally display equipment flat generated global image internet key keyboards lcd letter liquid macintosh mid monitors occupation office ornate piano player power screen sign sound speaker spider surveillance technician technologies telephone tft tower vector visual waterproof web working
Yet another completely wrong in this case probably relating to a different image:
http://www.dreamstime.com/recharge-image749867
It seems that those three images have already had some keywords removed. As a matter of fact, that last image now doesn't have ANY keywords. Whoever removed all of the keywords, didn't bother to add any new ones. I will suggest a few so that the image might be found by someone.
702
« on: April 23, 2007, 10:32 »
I agree somewhat with you geopappas about the fact that the side show people may hog too much space if they images were place in both areas - however being the fact that only 8 images are shown in the sideshow at a time - i don't feel like they are hogging too much room from the regular search results.
But if you click on the "More Sideshow images" link, then you are taken to a full-page of Sideshow ONLY images which will display 50 images/page.
703
« on: April 23, 2007, 07:42 »
If you allow the Sideshow to also encompass placement in the regular search, then you will end up with the uber-portfolios hogging the first pages of most searches. This would be the anti-thesis of one of LuckyOliver's main themes - to help the amateur photographer break into the microstock business.
I think that allowing Sideshow images to hog the first few pages of the sort order would be a death-knell to most of the other artists. In turn, many artists would probably just delete their portfolios (since they wouldn't have a chance of selling much).
704
« on: April 23, 2007, 07:35 »
I don't see the Sideshow as having anything to do with placement of images in the result set. It is about allowing images to sell for a higher amount (the Midstock area that Bryan is talking about) and getting a higher royalty (50% vs 30%).
With the Sideshow, there are now two search result sets. The regular result set and the Sideshow result set. Your image will be in one of them, depending on how you want to sell your image.
The Sideshow result set will obviously be much smaller than the normal result set, since you have to have 100 downloads to be eligible and then you only get to put 25% of your images in there (at the most). For example, if you search on "flower", you will get 2500 images in the regular search and 77 in the Sideshow search. Even though the Sideshow will grow in time, so will the regular search. So there is a much higher probability of being found in the Sideshow.
705
« on: April 20, 2007, 05:33 »
Artists that don't have 100 images yet, but achieve that total after July 19, 2007 will have to pay $1/image to custom price images.
My biggest complaint with the new feature is that it is geared towards members with uber-portfolios, since it is way easier to reach 100 downloads with 1000s of images. Since most members have < 100 images online, they won't be able to take advantage of this new feature. In other words, for members with smaller portfolios, they will need to pay to use this new feature. I would have preferred to have seen the new feature implemented for images that were selling well. For example, all images that have over a certain # of sales could then be priced higher. Although I don't have a large portfolio (it averages a little over 100 images between all of the sites that I am on), I am usually in the top 10% of sales on each site. Yet, I won't be able to participate in this new feature unless I pay (since I only have a few dozen sales at this point).
706
« on: April 20, 2007, 05:23 »
LO now allows artists with over 100 sales to custom price 25% of their portfolio. Artists with over 500 sales can custom price 50% of their portfolio. Custom-priced images will be specially placed on a side bar called the "Sideshow". Artists with over 100 images need to take advantage of this before July 19, 2007 or they will have to pay $1/image to custom price images. Artists that don't have 100 images yet, but achieve that total after July 19, 2007 will have to pay $1/image to custom price images. What do you guys & gals think?See the following link for more info: http://www.luckyoliver.com/info/sideshow
707
« on: April 20, 2007, 05:17 »
It seems that LO has finally opened up a forum. The difference is that they don't have sub-forums and are trying to use sticky tags (aka keywords) to search for threads. Here is the link: http://www.luckyoliver.com/odditorium/post/1/the_odditoriumWhat do you guys think of the new Odditorium?
708
« on: April 20, 2007, 05:14 »
For Standard Licenses:If you are non-exclusive, then you can't change the prices on your images until you are an Emerald (which means that you have sold over 10,000 images). If you are exclusive, you can change prices on your images starting at Bronze (which means you have sold over 100 images). For Extended Licenses:Everyone can change prices on Extended Licenses starting at Bronze. You can check out the following two pages on Fotolia for more info: Pricing: http://www.fotolia.com/info/tarif.phpRanking: http://www.fotolia.com/ranking/
709
« on: April 18, 2007, 16:56 »
"Greetings!
Im with the Center of the American West, a non-profit organization through the University of Colorado at Boulder, and I want to let you know that one of your photos was used in a Report from the Center entitled, What Every Westerner Should Know About Energy Efficiency and Conservation. Due credit for your photo was given on page 66 of the report under Image Credits. You can visit our website and check out other reports if youd like. Thank you for the use of your work.
Shawna Riley
Center of the American West
http://www.centerwest.org
[email protected]"
Well! Gone to the site... downloaded the report... but! Only 52 pages! and the report was published in 2003! LOL. What do u think?
I'm glad to report that the message was genuine. I just checked the website for the Center of the American West (@ http://www.centerwest.org/) and the new report titled What Every Westerner Should Know About Energy Efficiency and Conservation is now available. The report included one of my images on p. 15 and it even listed credits at the end of the report as promised. Here is a thumbnail of the original image for any that are interested:  You can download the report from the following URL: http://www.centerwest.org/publications/pdf/energycons.pdfKudos to that site for all of their hard work, for notifying the artists about the usage of their images, and for crediting all of the artists for their images! They truly went above and beyond all normal conventions.
710
« on: April 18, 2007, 16:15 »
Holy utility belt Batman!
The Penguin and the Jet are loose in Gotham City.
What next, the Joker???
711
« on: April 17, 2007, 17:51 »
I was very surprised to have 3 images refused at IS today - one for using brand names in my keywords (the brand names were part of the CV)...
The CV was taken from Getty, which sells editorial. You can have brand names for editorial shots, but not for commercial stock. They were suppose to be rejecting all band names since they introduced the CV. I don't think you'll win that scout one.
There is a very simple solution that IS could implement so that everyone would be happy: Remove these terms from the CV. It would take at most a day to do it and it would avoid confusion and frustration on both sides.
712
« on: April 17, 2007, 07:07 »
Here are a few excerpts: "Each monthly contest will reflect a specific theme or topic. We want to see your images that depict or represent that theme." === "Prizes for each monthly contest will vary, but will most likely include: 1st place - 80 GB Video iPod, featured image on home page and in monthly newsletter 2nd place - 30 GB Video iPod and featured image on home page and mention in monthly newsletter 3rd place - featured image on home page and mention in monthly newsletter" === "Entries must be new and cannot already exist on the site..." For more info, see here: http://www.stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=2181
713
« on: April 17, 2007, 05:07 »
I just saw the image before I came over here. I didn't even realize that it was FP's photo. Congrats on the shot.
BTW, which way is up (in the image)?
714
« on: April 14, 2007, 09:55 »
If the bottle had washed up ashore it would be lying flat down, I guess.
There also wouldn't be sand on top of the bottle (probably from the photographer's hand). One thing that I do like about the photo is the boat in the background (on the right side of the image).
715
« on: April 14, 2007, 09:54 »
You can see the photographer in the bottle (the refelction, not the actual photographer).
I thought that was something behind the bottle, but now that I look at it again I think that you are right. I'll bet that this is probably what litifeta is referring to.
716
« on: April 14, 2007, 06:15 »
The horizon is crooked. Is that what you are referring to?
717
« on: April 13, 2007, 12:23 »
f you do not mind would you tell as how much dls/week that image has? I am just curious how good this kind of images sell on SS.
This image has 66 DLs in 3 weeks. Its not a vector right?
Correct.
719
« on: April 13, 2007, 07:11 »
One software package that was forgotten in the poll was PaintShop Pro. I used it for years and years until recently, since I couldn't afford PhotoShop. It can do almost everything that PhotoShop can do, but I find PaintShop easier to work with and MUCH MUCH FASTER.
720
« on: April 12, 2007, 06:33 »
well.. sorta off topic but. Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more?? Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
Geopappas explained it but lots weren't convinced. They made SS put a disclaimer that it was geneated from a JPEG as they thought it was misleading.
From a designers perspective, I guess the price is low compared to macro sites and most places pass costs onto clients anyway.
CJPhoto: Thanks for adding that. I had forgotten about that crucial piece. Although I love SS, I sometimes wonder why they uprez images 100% and why they create a TIFF from a JPG. They both seem pretty silly to me. But if that is what the customer wants, then...
721
« on: April 12, 2007, 05:28 »
I tried keywording two images when it first came out for fun, but it is definitely not worth it for me. Maybe for others that live in a country where 2 cents is worth a lot more it might be worth it, but here in the U.S. 2 cents doesn't go a long way.
722
« on: April 12, 2007, 05:25 »
Why would shutterstock create a tiff from a jpg then sell it for more?? Doesn't that defeat the purpose - the two files are identical, why would one cost more?
According to SS (from a thread when this was first implemented), this was a feature that was requested from buyers. Many buyers purchase an image and then work on it over time. As they open and close a JPG image, it degrades (because of the re-compression). To avoid this, the first thing buyers will do when they download an image is convert it to a TIFF, so that opening and closing the image will not degrade it. So this essentially saves them time from converting the image. You can think of SS providing buyers a service (converting JPG to TIFF) that they are now charging for.
723
« on: April 09, 2007, 16:40 »
Review times do vary, but DT's does seem to be going in the wrong direction.
724
« on: April 09, 2007, 06:25 »
The high number of images in the queue tells me that Dreamstime is the place where people want to be.
That is not what the #s tell me. If what are saying is true, then their online #s should be increasing faster than any other microstock. But their not. In the past week: FT claims that they have increased by over 61,000 images, but it is probably less than half that SS has increased by almost 29,000 images IS has increased by over 24,000 images DT has increased by almost 20,000 images BigStock has increased by about 19,000 images What the #s suggest to me is that they don't have enough reviewers.
725
« on: April 08, 2007, 16:25 »
When did they make the change from being a freebie site to a pay site?
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
