|
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 - Sean Locke Photography
7376
« on: November 19, 2008, 16:51 »
Look, they just don't want similars on both places - same location, same model, same theme. Different models in different stores, fine. Same model in same store, likely bad.
No, rejects are not passed back to iStock anymore.
7377
« on: November 19, 2008, 16:37 »
Hey, I forgot Alamy distributes Photodisc. Check me out on Alamy : AAD09W 
7378
« on: November 18, 2008, 22:58 »
Hi All,
I to would love to here from the exclusives who have ventured into this with Getty. What kind of percentage do they offer. Is it the same as your Micro percentage or different. Do they make the edits and do you find them tight or loose. Is the upload easy compared to Micro. How are your sales per image compared to your Micro work. Do you send them your very best work or possibly even do shoots specifically for the Macro collections. Any info would be very helpful.
Thanks,
AVAVA
It's the same as anyone else contributing to the Getty Photodisc collection. Nothing special for us.
7379
« on: November 18, 2008, 13:54 »
At Istock, right now, reviewing times are almost 3 weeks.
That's wrong. Why is that wrong? One of my images with a Christmas tree was rejected due to 'winter, holidays' not being relevant to the file. I'm sure we'd love to empathize with you, but mentioning rejection issues without posting the image in question makes it really hard. If your tree image is wrong in your eyes, you should post it in the keywording forum. They are very responsive lately.
7380
« on: November 18, 2008, 07:26 »
Yes
7381
« on: November 17, 2008, 18:41 »
The sales relevancy idea is nothing new. As I mentioned we've been throwing that and manually weighted keywords around as suggs for a couple of years.
7382
« on: November 17, 2008, 09:36 »
Yippee!
7383
« on: November 17, 2008, 04:28 »
Oh, I totally agree relevancy should be a factor. I've argued for weighted keywords and sales tracking from searches as much as anyone, if not more.
But we ain't there yet.
7384
« on: November 15, 2008, 23:33 »
7385
« on: November 15, 2008, 13:38 »
Madelaide got it right. Best match should essentially be employed for the benefit of the BUYER - to get the most relevant picture for the search term(s) used. IS apparently see best match as a tool to benefit CONTRIBUTERS and in its latest incarnation openly and undeniably to benefit their exclusive photographers.
There is no relevancy involved in Best Match, as has been said thousands of time. As for benefitting the buyer, I hardly see any complaints from buyers about the returns from the sort. They don't come onto the forum screaming about how bad it is. Personally I have no problem with that as I can also become an exclusive IS photographer. I choose not to because I am not willing to sacrifice 80% of my monthly income, which can in no way be compensated for by increased sales at IS as an exclusive photographer. My question is this: for how long can IS continue to benefit their exclusives at the cost of their BUYERS. When will the buyers get fed up to wade through pages of irrelevant images which are placed before more relevant images just because they are from exclusive photographers. In the end this can only have negative consequences for everybody when buyers start to leave for other agencies. There are indications that this is already happening as indicated by a dramatic drop in IS traffic.
FYI, if your perceived drop in IS traffic has to do with Alexa, you can disregard that, again mentioned many times. By the way, there are just as many independent irrelevant images as exclusive. I have done some experiments of my own and I concluded that a buyer at IS I will really be frustrated with the poor results of the current best match results. If I was an exclusive photographer at IS I will be nervous because it is clear that IS is gambling with their current good fortunes.
I'd say you're slightly biased in your experiment. Maybe you'd like to provide us with your example of poor results.
7386
« on: November 15, 2008, 08:46 »
After hearing all the complaints about the new best match at IS and everyone taking a hit to there income because of it,
Why do you think everyone is taking a hit?
7387
« on: November 14, 2008, 16:20 »
Show us the image. Really, I think it depends sometimes. But 99% of the time, a fake added shadow looks pretty cheesy. If it has a natural shadow, I leave it or tone it down.
7388
« on: November 12, 2008, 12:57 »
Hard to comment without seeing the photos in question...
7389
« on: November 12, 2008, 07:48 »
Nice one. Shows hard to find stuff will sell as RM...
7390
« on: November 11, 2008, 20:18 »
the difference is minilypse versus istockalype? - Sean - correct??
Dunno. I don't pay attention too much. The only ones I noticed in headlines as exclusive was the Berlin one and the Seattle one. The Malta thing, which seemed huge was open to anyone....
7391
« on: November 11, 2008, 19:43 »
That is only true 42% of the time...
7392
« on: November 11, 2008, 17:37 »
7393
« on: November 11, 2008, 17:16 »
Ok, peace out.
7394
« on: November 11, 2008, 17:15 »
No, content shot at official iStock meets has to go on iStock, and no, you don't get anymore revenue on it than your normal rate.
7395
« on: November 11, 2008, 15:55 »
You said 'helping a bunch of newbs' and I was pointeing out, even there, were 'newbs' we all helped.
7396
« on: November 11, 2008, 15:20 »
Believe it or not, there were a lot of "newb" diamond photographers there. Vector and 3d types. We all had a good time
7397
« on: November 11, 2008, 15:18 »
But seeing that you are not so perfect at keywording , your posts are too arrogant , especially the comment about the that persons income on Alamy.
Obviously you missed the point that 100% approvals at a site where you may make less than the site with 50% approvals may not be so great. That's what I was bringing up. You were not here complaining about a specific rejection, as hrhportia was, so there was no need to go trying to critique you ?
I was not complaining about any rejection at all.
7398
« on: November 11, 2008, 13:11 »
Well if you like, you can start at your own backyard
Unfortunately, I was not here complaining about a specific rejection, as hrhportia was, so there was no need to go trying to critique me. Nevertheless, "vector" would be an inappropriate keyword, and must have snuck by when I was cleaning out the auto-DAing on my two thousand files. So thanks so much. I also did not say anything about sainthood. I commented that you can not automatically agree with people's assessment of keyword removals without seeing the image. 98% of the people complaining about iStock keywording turn out to be wrong. Speaking of images, how about a link to your images so we can see how hot you are?
7399
« on: November 11, 2008, 09:19 »
I hesitate to comment on any keywording 'mistake' without first seeing the image in question.
7400
« on: November 10, 2008, 22:57 »
Really tired lately of getting rejects with claims they have found noise, or purple fringing.
There is no way any of this is viewable at 100%. They must blow up to 200% at least.
DOes anyone know.
I'm sure we would all love to commiserate with you, if only you'd post a sample or two so we can see how far off they were.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
