|
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 - SuperPhoto
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 47
726
« on: April 21, 2020, 07:44 »
It would be nice to have high quality reviews, from qualified reviewers that did their job.
727
« on: April 19, 2020, 22:13 »
it's because its a picture of MY egg & toast!  and THAT makes it special!  but in all seriousness... it is a bit annoying with ss having random rejections for no reason other than the east indian (or whatever 3rd world country) reviewer is too lazy to do the work, and since no one is 'looking' over them they just watching pizza while clicking 'reject' on their phone and get paid for that... ...also the review times is ridiculously fast, uploaded a batch, set my timer on the phone, it took 40 seconds and the review was done! ...
I wish mine did that. Sometimes it takes days, but just for a reminder, reviews used to be days and many days and everyone complained, because it was so important that their latest "stock photo" of some sliced vegetables, a handshake or girl with a headset, was so important, and they had to be online right away.
I always said, what's so important about the next upload, except news and editorial of course, that a picture of an egg and toast, that hasn't been in someones portfolio for buyers since 15 years ago, just has to be there, right now, today? Really?
Yes, I'd like Editorial to be fast tracked and isolated food to be side tracked for a week at minimum. LOL
728
« on: April 16, 2020, 20:02 »
Is there an option somewhere in shutterstock for that? I didn't see that...? Dear Adobe,
For years we had been in the situation that content supply is abundant. And yes, this is still true. In some Areas.
Well said, Jimbo. I do hope Adobe listens to you and responds favorably.
Last night, I flipped the switch on my SS account from
YES, please do sell my videos!
to
NO, don't you dare sell my videos at el cheapo prices!
This morning, I woke up resolved to offer my footage exclusively on Pond 5, because to date they've sold better there than anywhere else. (Not stills, of course, but we're talking footage right now.) And while I realize the risk of putting all my video eggs in someone else's corporate basket, there don't appear to be a lot of decent options at this point.
So then, right after signing up as a P5 video exclusive, I started deleting my 700+ clips from Adobe. AS has given me very few video sales since I started doing that in 2017, and the last video sale was in 2018 almost two years ago. Doesn't seem like much of a loss.
It's a shame one has to pick from so few options to maintain any sense of value in the work we produce, but that's where we are. I'm still "all in" to Adobe with my stills, but my videos will be completely gone there by this evening.
729
« on: April 15, 2020, 11:24 »
anyone know where?
that's really devaluaing the content, especially as now it prices videos at $3/video for people who purchase.
also - if say someone doesn't use their full subscription (i.e., lets say they only use 5/10 items) - that means shutterstock pockets the rest of the money?
(so in reality, they are giving you an even LOWER commission than the 30%, more like 10-15%/video)...
730
« on: April 13, 2020, 19:48 »
it's a fire sale.
short term revenue boost, but longterm probably not a good idea.
731
« on: April 13, 2020, 07:18 »
If they were only allowing quality items in - I'm all for that. That's not the case. They are just mass rejecting because the reviewers - whomever they are - just don't feel like working. seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.
the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.
I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.
Sorry, no one from us like rejections, but to me this sounds like good news from Shutterstock, the better news can be to start removing some existing crap.
There are black clouds coming over this business after COVID-19, and if this is true and they apply rigorous review this will improve the revenue per photo accepted.
The old experienced contributors knows very well the value of acceptance, this is not a routine process.
P.S. I don't mention your rejections or someone's particular, I focus my thoughts as a whole about the collection.
732
« on: April 12, 2020, 22:48 »
So many lately. Maybe their AI (Artificial Intelligence or Absolute Idiot) review system flags this up every time it meets a word it doesn't recognize eg a place or town name.
I'd be even more irritated if they were still selling as well as before. Now I tend to just sigh and move on....
But crazy.
PS If they don't reject for Title they reject for Editorial. A picture of a road bridge for heavens sake.....
Beyond the pale......
quite possibly it wasn't in 'east indian' english. much different then british, american, canadian or australian english.
you need to write it in proper east indian english, something like:
"super vech much gooder phto of toiwn in place somewhere, thankyou come again".
then that should help get you approved.
Thanks for the good laugh! I'm sure we all appreciate it these days. 
lol yeah... funny thing is - after I wrote it - I started thinking hmm... WHAT if... that ACTUALLY WAS TRUE??!? For example, take rejected titles like: "Two Olympic Figure Skaters performing dance routine on ice" [SHUTTERSTOCK: REJECTED! TITLE NOT IN ENGLISH!] And replace it with: "2 girlee girls doing dancee thing like swirlee swirls" [SHUTTERSTOCK: APPROVED!] Or... "Happy family with husband, wife and son having a picnic in the park" [SHUTTERSTOCK: REJECTED! TITLE NOT IN ENGLISH!"] With: "Happiest Manly Boy Man in Woman In Parking In Eating Time" [SHUTTERSTOCK: BEAUTIFUL! APPROVED!] Or... "Government Employees Enforcing Quarantine Orders in City District" [SHUTTERSTOCK! REJECTED! NOT SUITABLE FOR EDITORIAL FOOTAGE] With: "Buildings very missing with no peopls with very much not so official official" [SHUTTERSTOCK! OMFG! ACES! TOP OF THE SEARCH RESULTS FOR EDITORIAL FOOTAGE!] Whats something YOU can come up with?
733
« on: April 11, 2020, 23:28 »
So many lately. Maybe their AI (Artificial Intelligence or Absolute Idiot) review system flags this up every time it meets a word it doesn't recognize eg a place or town name.
I'd be even more irritated if they were still selling as well as before. Now I tend to just sigh and move on....
But crazy.
PS If they don't reject for Title they reject for Editorial. A picture of a road bridge for heavens sake.....
Beyond the pale......
quite possibly it wasn't in 'east indian' english. much different then british, american, canadian or australian english. you need to write it in proper east indian english, something like: "super vech much gooder phto of toiwn in place somewhere, thankyou come again". then that should help get you approved.
734
« on: April 07, 2020, 14:45 »
The real crap happens when you submit 10-15GB of video clips and they all get rejected for some i d i o t i c reason. Then you have to UPLOAD AGAIN, and it usually passes... Its just wonderful.
exactly what has happened to me. PLUS on top of that having to manually go through & title editorial captions following their way/style, + categories, etc...
735
« on: March 31, 2020, 08:28 »
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus. "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."
I think that's garbage. It may be just for video - but I suspect:
a) It is outsourced in India/Phillipines
b) By SOME reviewers (not all) - A combination of laziness, probably reviewing on their cellphone while watching t.v. (so don't feel like using data) - so just go through the 'motions' of reviewing so they get paid when in fact they are doing nothing at all. (I've actually hired/outsourced workers from those area - and it's been my experience unless you really watch what is being done - that is precisely what happens. Had some data entry/review jobs outsourced where I could "see" what they were doing - and it varied from doing it 100% incorrect to simply waiting 10 seconds per item, then clicking 'reviewed & accepted' without actually doing any work).
It's just *really* annoying. But it seems to be some (not all) reviewers are just automatically rejecting 100% of items.
I'm holding off for now too. Ive gone from a 99.999% approval to 50% at the most. All for noise artifacts where there is 0 noise or artifacts. Shooting in 4K RAW on a professional Sony cam. Editing them in Pro Res. I've even tried submitting the 4K as HD - still get rejected. If I re-upload them I might get 50% through but it's wasting my time too much. Sales have tanked since COVID-19 so putting my time into other creative digital areas.
The only thing keeping me afloat at the moment is template making on membership sites (only upload templates) Without these sales I'd be finding it difficult. I'm a full time stock producer.
I wish shutterstock could make it easier for us in these troubling times....
Yes - that seems to be the same message for me. I have super high quality (very high end *cameras*), mechanical shutter (which most hobbyist photographers don't even know the difference), great lighting conditions - and get stupid inaccurate things like "noise" when there is 0 noise, etc, etc... It's annoying that *some* of these reviewers without direct supervision abuse the work at home policy.
736
« on: March 31, 2020, 04:38 »
This just came out from SS. It makes no sense as reviewers work in their homes on computers and no computer has ever given anyone a virus. "PLEASE NOTE: Our review teams are taking the necessary steps to continue operating safely and at full capacity. However, you may experience longer than usual wait times for review due to the global impact of COVID-19."
I think that's garbage. It may be just for video - but I suspect: a) It is outsourced in India/Phillipines b) By SOME reviewers (not all) - A combination of laziness, probably reviewing on their cellphone while watching t.v. (so don't feel like using data) - so just go through the 'motions' of reviewing so they get paid when in fact they are doing nothing at all. (I've actually hired/outsourced workers from those area - and it's been my experience unless you really watch what is being done - that is precisely what happens. Had some data entry/review jobs outsourced where I could "see" what they were doing - and it varied from doing it 100% incorrect to simply waiting 10 seconds per item, then clicking 'reviewed & accepted' without actually doing any work). It's just *really* annoying. But it seems to be some (not all) reviewers are just automatically rejecting 100% of items.
737
« on: March 30, 2020, 22:40 »
seems right now the solution by some reviewers at shutterstock is to reject 100% of items. total laziness.
the reasons have no bearing on the video footage. its actually a complete waste of time right now to even bother submitting.
I'd recommend everyone else here for the time being don't submit to shutterstock, unless you want to re-do your work later.
738
« on: March 30, 2020, 00:17 »
I think so - I think it is the 'partner' agreement (where Pond5 is selling assets on other sites).
739
« on: March 26, 2020, 07:38 »
No I don't think the agencies should have more money. And as much as it would be nice for agencies to increase their royalty rates... it's never going to happen. Well, it might in very rare instances and for specific reasons, but if you think the agencies are going to reduce their profits just so that you can earn more... you might be waiting quite some time.
That's the point of my reply though... surely you can see the irony in a post about agencies only caring how much money they make, when the whole point of your post was due to you caring about how much money you make.
rare instances and specific reasons, that's it!
Why is adobe giving away 2 months of CC for everyone instead of charging double/triple in this times?
or, why is USA gov sending 1000 usd checks to everyone instead of sending billions of usd to few corporations?
Think about it.
lol re: gov'ts giving checks - it's kind of like a casino giving you a "free" $20 credit. because they know they'll get it back (aka taxes). (in reality - it is "your" money "they" are giving back to you, but people don't seem to get that).
adobe - it's a goodwill gesture that will probably help them in the longrun - because people remember companies that helped them in times of need, and tend to reciprocate in times of abundance.
740
« on: March 26, 2020, 07:36 »
No I don't think the agencies should have more money. And as much as it would be nice for agencies to increase their royalty rates... it's never going to happen. Well, it might in very rare instances and for specific reasons, but if you think the agencies are going to reduce their profits just so that you can earn more... you might be waiting quite some time.
That's the point of my reply though... surely you can see the irony in a post about agencies only caring how much money they make, when the whole point of your post was due to you caring about how much money you make.
rare instances and specific reasons, that's it!
Why is adobe giving away 2 months of CC for everyone instead of charging double/triple in this times?
or, why is USA gov sending 1000 usd checks to everyone instead of sending billions of usd to few corporations?
Think about it.
lol re: gov'ts giving checks - it's kind of like a casino giving you a "free" $20 credit. because they know they'll get it back (aka taxes). adobe - it's a goodwill gesture that will probably help them in the longrun - because people remember companies that helped them in times of need, and tend to reciprocate in times of abundance.
741
« on: March 22, 2020, 21:47 »
haha, now that's funny - I never thought someone would have their kid do it - but who knows, you could be 100% correct!
While just speculation, I don't think it's AI. I think they've outsourced it to somewhere like India, where a guy gets paid for how many videos he "reviews".
So out of laziness, periodically just skips a bunch so he/she can say they were "reviewed", so he/she gets paid.
I know for a fact some of them do exactly that with deliveries. (I.e., some DHL drivers will just mark "attempted delivery" several times so it "appears" they are working, when in fact they just skip the delivery route). Some of them are very creative with ways to 'scam' the system, aka get paid without doing any work.
Good theories, I'd agree. If there's a way for someone to cheat the system and get paid for pretending to be working, they will often do that.
"Here honey, Daddy is busy watching the soccer match, play this reviewer game for me..."
742
« on: March 21, 2020, 19:20 »
and to top it of they reject videos of good quality for the moronic reason of noise .i bought the app neat video for premiere pro and i tested it and trust me once you use it you cant find one single piece of noise in the video
so what the heck are they seeing? ? but yea its not humans its the bloody AI
While just speculation, I don't think it's AI. I think they've outsourced it to somewhere like India, where a guy gets paid for how many videos he "reviews". So out of laziness, periodically just skips a bunch so he/she can say they were "reviewed", so he/she gets paid. I know for a fact some of them do exactly that with deliveries. (I.e., some DHL drivers will just mark "attempted delivery" several times so it "appears" they are working, when in fact they just skip the delivery route). Some of them are very creative with ways to 'scam' the system, aka get paid without doing any work.
743
« on: March 20, 2020, 07:56 »
Yes, it is pronounced "j"iff, although some people like to be different and say "g"iff with a soft g.
& haha, I thought "everyone" knew gif meant graphics interchange format, I probably learned that about 25 years ago when gifs started first becoming popular in Netscape - and the fact you could animate an image was "magic".
744
« on: March 18, 2020, 00:32 »
what does that mean? "dis" and "$$" +50%? and "rpd"?
745
« on: March 16, 2020, 17:16 »
I like it - just came back from flying it now.
It's a good 'quick' portable drone - but main issues is the smaller sensor - and you really have to check wind conditions - AND from what some people have said (haven't tried it myself) can't do heavy braking (i.e., flying forward, then stop) - otherwise it could break it. (Phantom you can do super hard braking, which actually in a way is fun).
I get a bit nervous when I get all the "strong wind" warnings with the mini + it says "maximum power output" when you aren't flying very high or very far - even with a slight wind.
So - portablity, awesome. Picture - decent.
746
« on: March 10, 2020, 23:47 »
Thanks!
And wow - impressed he was able to generate that income from a *single image*! (Although, of course, it is a very cool looking image!)
747
« on: March 10, 2020, 23:39 »
Not really a good idea, unless you have one person assign all copyright/ownership of photos/images/etc to you, and you pay them a royalty - based on an agreement in writing. If it's not in writing:
- Friendships break up (sad but true), in which case your friend might retailiate (i.e., contact all the agencies telling them you are selling his/her 'stolen' content, etc without a written agreement).
- Almost always a disagreement about how much work/compensation someone should be getting
- Interests change. Maybe your friend will get married/have kids/travel/get a job/etc. Or maybe you will.
Not really a good idea - unless you take the proper steps (i.e., outlining EVERYTHING in writing) - so BOTH of you have a CRYSTAL clear understanding of the expectations of each person. Then - if anything DID happen - and it had to go to court/etc - you have a clear document which makes it easy to decide who gets what. But it probably wouldn't - because you could just show your friend that document - and both of you would save a lot of time, stress, etc because it was clear, and you could part ways on amicable terms.
748
« on: February 17, 2020, 22:36 »
I own my dream car
749
« on: February 17, 2020, 08:14 »
If someone is 'truly' exclusive (and doesn't cheat hoping pond5 doesn't notice there clips elsewhere), from what I've seen I do not believe the slight increase in sales compensates for lost sales at other agencies...
750
« on: February 08, 2020, 23:11 »
As many people have said before (and I agree from personal experience) - it seems shutterstock, no matter how perfect your video is - will at a bare minimum, *always* reject at least 30% of the footage, if not more.
And if you happen to get one batch they love (say 50 videos of footage) - and got a 100% approval rating, then to "balance" the minium 30% rejection ratio, the next 50 clips would have at least 30 of those rejected.
You could have the most exclusive clips in the world (say of the last 20 presidents over the last 100 years in the usa doing private interviews), perfectly keyworded, perfect denoising/etc - and you'll get comments like "clip too similar to last clip submitted, rejected", or "Noise / Artifacts / Pixelation / Posterization: Clip contains noise, compression artifacts, pixelation and/or posterization that is prominent and/or affects the main subject/focus of the clip.", or "Keywords: Keywords are either not relevant to the clip, not in English, or trademarked. Keywords must be specific and must directly relate to the clip.".
I wouldn't worry about it.
BTW - which other agencies do you submit to?
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
