|
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 - sharply_done
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 73
726
« on: June 24, 2008, 11:25 »
Although they have a fairly easy acceptance policy, this is offset by their tedious keywording procedure which is more cumbersome than that of IS. Your images will get plenty of views, but sales are still very sparse.
727
« on: June 24, 2008, 00:56 »
As I understand it, the whole point of this is to establish a scale so that people can easily compare the earning potential of various agencies. If this is so, using RPI doesn't make as much sense as percentage of monthly income (PMI).
Taking a step back, I can't see anything meaningful coming of this.
While RPI and PMI and have meaning within a given portfolio, I'm not so sure how valid comparisons will be when using multiple portfolios. Statisticians are very wary about analysing data from multiple sources, and aggregating RPIs/PMIs from people with vastly different portfolios (think size, content, and quality here) to come up with a simple average seems to fall in this category. Sure, you can get a number, but will it mean anything? And should you draw conclusions from it?
728
« on: June 22, 2008, 01:33 »
Here's what I got: I'll shoot and upload what I want - who cares what actually sells? Hey wait - I'm not selling anything!
You're right on the money with this one, sjlocke.
729
« on: June 21, 2008, 19:24 »
I think I may be a victim in this - I typically use 40+ keywords, and my FT sales have really begun to plummet.
730
« on: June 21, 2008, 02:08 »
This has happened to me only once. My image sat there for almost a week before I hit the cancel button and reuploaded. The identical 're-upped' image was approved.
731
« on: June 19, 2008, 02:37 »
My images aren't showing up either ... not in this or any other lightbox I added stuff to.
What's of more concern to me is the number of inappropriate images in this lightbox. It's supposed to be "Healthy Foods", not "Gourmet Foods" or "Stuff I Stick In My Mouth". What are images of cheese, coffee, pills, lobster, man drinking water, kid eating sandwich, loaf of french bread, potatoes, and even a rooster (yes, a rooster) doing in there? I mean really, c'mon people - these things aren't "healthy foods".
This lightbox needs a name change or gatekeeper/editor if it ever hopes to become a valuable resource.
732
« on: June 19, 2008, 02:17 »
Can anyone who has actually gotten an istock sub sale tell me how long it takes for the royalty to post to your account? Was it midnight Calgary? or much later? The FAQ just says "after midnight" which leaves it pretty vague IMHO.
If I ever actually get a sub sale, I'd like to know what to expect. 
thanks in advance!
Subs are calculated after the day ends in Calgary (MST = GMT -7), and IS updates the 'Stats' pages and Balances soon afterwards. The easiest way to find out if you've had any sub sales is to note your Balance at midnight MST, then see if it changes after the update is done.
733
« on: June 18, 2008, 10:25 »
2 hours ... Ack!
I bought a Delkin brand Firewire CF reader years ago, just before USB 2.0 came out. My PC didn't have a Firewire port, so I had to buy that, too. I haven't had any problems with it at all.
Although USB 2.0 is theoretically much faster than Firewire, I've tested my USB 2.0 CF reader against it and found that they run at more-or-less the same speed for large (17 MP) RAW files. Buy whichever is cheaper.
734
« on: June 13, 2008, 14:17 »
Well I would disagree.
First of all not all forums have censorship. As a matter of fact post/threads are never edited or deleted on SS (it happened may be once or twice for some extreme cases).
...
It's not valid to compare the SS forum with those of their competitors. Most sites allow forum access to both buyers and sellers. Buyers cannot access the SS forum, which thus exists solely for the benefit of sellers. It's an easy guess that the SS forum would be be administered a little differently if buyers could see what sellers are writing on it.
735
« on: June 12, 2008, 11:16 »
Fotolia has subs? Since when?
736
« on: June 12, 2008, 09:38 »
Forget the formula - the simplest way to determine the "normal" focal length for your camera is to hold it vertically while using both eyes to look at your subject. Zoom in or out until the image from the camera synchronizes with your non-camera eye. Give it a try!
737
« on: June 11, 2008, 14:29 »
I added an image to this lightbox (I believe) yet when I look at the lightbox, I don't see my image. Does it take awhile to show?
Yes, images added to lightboxes take a day or so to show up.
738
« on: June 11, 2008, 14:16 »
This is a super-easy way to add images to the lightboxes - way to go, leaf!
739
« on: June 10, 2008, 13:35 »
They must be anticipating a huge number of subscription sales if they were at first not going to count them, but are now willing to count them at a low ratio.
I agree with the sentiment of "a sale is a sale is a sale". If they're not willing to increase the commission, a fair concession would be to allow sub sales to count in calculating ranking level. I'd like to see it higher than 4:1, though.
740
« on: June 09, 2008, 23:56 »
So let me see if I understand then.
I uploaded these 10 days ago - so whenever I get around to submitting them, they go straight to the front of the line? And get reviewed before your stuff you pushed 4 or 5 days ago? And that's the typical behavior?
Yep, that's the way DT, FT and SS work. Uploading a bunch and then keywording them later so that they can be instantly reviewed is not necessarily a good strategy though. I'm not sure what the misinfo was - you saw what I saw - 2 hour review time, and 4x my normal submission queue. Are you at least seeing the 4x submissions?
The misinfo was you declaring "DT queue empty! Go submit!" when the queue is in fact far from empty. You then went on to say that the current review time is 2 hours when it is really 98 hours. As far as DT 'upping' the limit to 200 goes, they've been known to do this from time to time - nothing new there.
741
« on: June 09, 2008, 23:20 »
Sorry that you thought I was attacking you, mantonino - I just saw that you were spreading misinformation and wanted to 'plug the leak', that's all.
742
« on: June 09, 2008, 22:11 »
5308107 Smiling woman in red 05/30/2008 2 hours
5308110 Woman and child on ATV 05/30/2008 2 hours
etc. for 15 files. Go try one.
I don't understand why you think the queue wait time is 2 hours. According to what you've written, your files were uploaded on May 30, which means they've been sitting in there for almost 10 days! I currently have 50 in the queue with times ranging from "n/a - Image under review" (uploaded on June 4) to 82 hours (uploaded last night).
743
« on: June 09, 2008, 21:43 »
Yeh, but I gotta ask, did you sell anything?
Way to go, tilo! I've been selected a bunch of times, and it's always boosted sales.
744
« on: June 09, 2008, 21:41 »
2 hours? That'll be the day. Better check again, mantonino.
745
« on: June 09, 2008, 11:41 »
...
And as a side note have you ever tried to find an image they feature there, it's hard work, someone should teach them how to add a link within an image!!
Or at the very least give credit to the photographer to help narrow down the search. Ooh...but that would just make way too much sense and complimentary to the contributors! 
RT: The images are hotlinked - clicking on the image sends you to its page. And nope, you didn't find the botched-up image I was referring to. Pixart: They do give credit to the photographer, but you have to hover the mouse over the image to see it.
746
« on: June 08, 2008, 21:50 »
I joined in Jan 07 and am a 'New Photographer' there, which means I have to upload 4.0+ MP images.
747
« on: June 07, 2008, 19:17 »
People are going to jump all over me for saying it, but I think the recent Time Magazine front cover placement may actually be worth LESS than even the small microstock royalty!
Time could have easily gone to Flickr and asked just about anyone there for permission to use one of their baby photos (as you can imagine there are tons of them). Very few would have turned them down. From some of the 'I'm stoked' comments I've read on this and other forums, I'm certain there are people here too that would have given them the image for free.
So ... if an internationally-recognized and well-respected publication (Time and National Geographic are the only ones that come to mind) approached you to use one of your images on their cover in exchange only for a photo credit, would you accept?
748
« on: June 07, 2008, 18:43 »
749
« on: June 06, 2008, 23:23 »
I just uploaded a few images today (Friday) in hopes they would be approved by sunday and live on Monday.
...
Yeah, me too. This sudden image approval surge at SS has thrown off my routine a bit.
750
« on: June 06, 2008, 20:15 »
...
still, microstock is not artistic in many way. it's more like prefab house vs real architecture, or as an articulate purist tells me, "stock photography is like porn, it sells with a lots of potential but little true feelings". 
I could not disagree more. You are missing the boat if you believe this, fotoKmyst. Big time.
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 73
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
