776
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock dropped the classic view
« on: January 27, 2016, 22:40 »
The classic view tastes great, but the new view is less filling.

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. 776
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock dropped the classic view« on: January 27, 2016, 22:40 »
The classic view tastes great, but the new view is less filling.
![]() 777
Photography Equipment / Re: Sensor quality vs lens quality« on: January 27, 2016, 22:36 »
If's it's a quality lens, with proper technique, you should see a difference (the higher density APS 20mp would look more detailed than the cropped full frame)
778
Shutterstock.com / Re: Wishes for 2016« on: December 25, 2015, 09:06 »
FT accepts editorial stills and video!
779
General Stock Discussion / Re: I quit microstock and you can too!« on: October 18, 2015, 21:51 »I've mostly quit microstock. I still have a few hundred images left down from a couple thousand and haven't submitted anything new for a couple years. How do you market your site? Is that a big expense for you? 780
General Stock Discussion / Re: Is Shutterstock for real???« on: October 09, 2015, 09:53 »
The "sharpness" thing is definitely kind of wacky. Some reviewers seem to reject for "not in focus" on images that are clearly quite sharp. Just sharpen them more to the point of verging on being oversharpened.
781
General - Top Sites / Re: Cancelled my iStock exclusivity - Good or bad?« on: October 05, 2015, 08:43 »Hi wds,Thanks! 782
General - Top Sites / Re: Cancelled my iStock exclusivity - Good or bad?« on: October 02, 2015, 07:04 »Kjekol, Thanks for the feedback What has been your experience income wise of the the "big three" (SS, iS, Fot) vs. the smaller players? In your view is it worth bothering with the smaller agencies? 783
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia Payouts - Paypal Overhead Cost?« on: September 29, 2015, 13:50 »
Thanks everyone. I'll just try it and see what happens!
784
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia Payouts - Paypal Overhead Cost?« on: September 29, 2015, 09:38 »If I earn 100 and request payout, I get 100 on my paypal account. So, Fotolia doesn't charge anything, but paypal does, when I withdraw money to my credit card. Well they kind of are charging something. By not having a system to generate checks or direct deposit, they are saving money on staff and putting the cost burden via Paypal fees on their contributors. A bit disappointing. Does anyone know how Skrill compares? 785
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia Payouts - Paypal Overhead Cost?« on: September 29, 2015, 09:07 »
In my case, I would have the Paypal account attached to a bank account number, no credit cards involved not sure if that makes any difference. It just seems unfair in that Fotolia seems to be asking me to fund their payout system via this cost. Kind of hard to believe since SS and iStock don't do that...in fact they generate paper checks for free if you so desire. That is why I am hoping I am missing something here.
786
Adobe Stock / Fotolia Payouts - Paypal Overhead Cost?« on: September 29, 2015, 08:58 »
New to Fotolia. They only payout royalties via PayPal or Skrill. Looking into this, I discovered that Paypay will charge a 2.9% fee on monies transferred to my bank account. So if I have $100 in royalties, I will only see $97.10. I am in the US.
- Am I missing something here? - Is Skrill any different? Thanks. 787
Shutterstock.com / Re: Shutterstock Reviewers Beating Me Up.... Anyone Else?« on: September 26, 2015, 08:52 »So, I just left a note in Title/Description that music notes have been changed and they still rejected images. Probably they didn't even read that. Any ideas what else could I do? Create a property release with the relevant info. 788
General Stock Discussion / Re: Editorial shots - where to put them?« on: September 14, 2015, 11:52 »I put all mine on alamy, they might not sell for a year or more but when they do, they can make more than hundreds of downloads with the micros. Does alamy require exclusivity for editorial work? 789
Adobe Stock / Re: Will Fotolia Ever Have Editorial Content?« on: September 12, 2015, 13:41 »Alamy, Getty, iStock ...So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?It's not increasing your chances. Not sure I'm following the reasoning...how does this reasoning differ for non-editorial content? 790
Adobe Stock / Re: Will Fotolia Ever Have Editorial Content?« on: September 12, 2015, 13:28 »So increasing your chances to have more sales is a bad idea?It's not increasing your chances. Like where (for editorial) ? 791
Adobe Stock / Will Fotolia Ever Have Editorial Content?« on: September 11, 2015, 16:08 »
iStock and Shutterstock both have editorial content. Has Fotolia ever discussed the possiblity of having Editorial content?
792
General - Stock Video / Re: Flickering light in my studio outputs« on: September 09, 2015, 07:50 »
It's gotta be the LED lights "flickering" beating against the frame rate of the video. If the LEDs and the camera framing "phase" happen to be insync, flickering will be minimal, but as they drift apart, flickering gets worse. Try going to all incandescent lighting.
793
General - Stock Video / Re: Flickering light in my studio outputs« on: September 08, 2015, 21:25 »
- What do mean by "the light in the camera"?
- I would guess that any flickering was due to the LED lights having an issue. What model make are they? 794
General Stock Discussion / Re: Adobe Creative Cloud Photography promotion $7.99 a month« on: August 29, 2015, 21:26 »
Part of me is wondering if this might be new pricing. Remember how long the $9.99/month deal was a "limited time offer".
795
Adobe Stock / Re: Fotolia: Changing a Title/Description after a file has been accepted« on: August 19, 2015, 22:17 »
Thanks. Seems strange.
796
Adobe Stock / Fotolia: Changing a Title/Description after a file has been accepted« on: August 19, 2015, 21:32 »
Is it possible to change a file description after it has been accepted?
It seems you can only change category, keywords and pricing. The title/description field seems to be locked out. I made a minor typo and want to change it. 797
Shutterstock.com / Re: New images hardly sell« on: August 13, 2015, 17:02 »
Maybe they changed the algorithm so you have to "give it more time"? How long has this been the case?
798
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock exclusivity question« on: August 07, 2015, 22:28 »Didn't you just start a thread about how terrible iStock was and how there are no sales there? No sales on istock, no sales anywhere else. Maybe move on to another hobby? There are thousands of images uploaded every day. Whether you upload 5 images or 500 in a day, each of your uploads is competing with thousands and thousands of other new uploads. So how is it any different if you upload 5 vs. 500 a day? 799
iStockPhoto.com / Re: istock exclusivity question« on: August 07, 2015, 12:12 »Didn't you just start a thread about how terrible iStock was and how there are no sales there? No sales on istock, no sales anywhere else. Maybe move on to another hobby? Do you already have your entire library of 5000 images on other sites? If not, get it all uploaded and give it some time as others are saying. 800
Shutterstock.com / Re: Why Does Shutterstock seem to break up mult-word keywords?« on: July 26, 2015, 09:59 »how do you enter your keywords? I use Lightroom also. In fact, on initial upload and when viewing in SS's "images to be submitted" the keywords aren't broken up, it is only upon actual submission that this happens. I also do all my uploades via ftp. |
Submit Your Vote
|