|
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 - qwerty
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 42
776
« on: October 17, 2010, 01:52 »
I don't think you'll get any takers here, might be wrong.
Best of luck,
interest free purchase of some LCD televisions and sell them on ebay or something like that, even if you lost 40% on the purchase price you'd be ahead
777
« on: October 16, 2010, 21:12 »
yes I am better because microstock has motivated me to take more photos and of different topics. who dug this old thead up, the record is atleast 3 years old. 
778
« on: October 15, 2010, 17:07 »
well done holgs,
making money whilst travelling is a lot of people dreams and I'd rather do it your way and take photos than work in some dodgy english pub for 3 pound an hour.
779
« on: October 15, 2010, 01:46 »
and didn't istock say they were raising the prices for vetta at like the end of the year (or something like that) then they brought it forward with no warning.
Like saying come in and buy this widget for $1 till the end of the year and when you get there oh sorry we changed our minds and did it now.
780
« on: October 13, 2010, 03:08 »
Entrollment?
Trolley Intercourse?
Mutal trollerbation?
I was thinking trollacanibal
781
« on: October 13, 2010, 02:40 »
I got my first "Limited commercial value" rejection today on a credit card super macro shot . Looking through the newest images on that same subject I stumbled upon this port - http://www.shutterstock.com/results.mhtml#page=1&gallery_id=434212
I was amazed by the poor photography - lighting , composition ( the lack of ) , subject choice ...
These are pretty recent submissions , not some relics from the dawn of microstock . These are not 10-15 accidently approved shots . There's no way this port was built going through the normal approval process . What's the point of raising the quality bar if this kind of work still finds its way in agency's catalog ?
you shouldn't be surpirised, altho they make a lot of money, these are pretty ragtag companies, with an inspection policy and crew that is at best amateurish, and always inconsistent. Imho they simply throw people at unfilled positions like a kid would slap a handful of wet sand in a sandcastle. If the cue is too big, I bet you they would drag in granpa, granma, and just someone from the street walking by, tell 'em they don't want shadows and weird stuff like that, and there you go. : )) I had shot that were rejected for LCV, poor lighting, comp, all at the same, accepted right the next batch, and sell too. You just shuouldn't give a flying f**k about it
What do you call a troll feeding a troll ?
782
« on: October 13, 2010, 02:20 »
if you want to go exclusive at Istock I wouldn't bank on more than 20-25% royalities in my calculations. That will be the future for all except the most talented and hard working exclusives there.
783
« on: October 12, 2010, 00:54 »
hi
784
« on: October 08, 2010, 20:21 »
ignored by 11 members already, maybe a new record.
back on thread
overall this year Istock is 10% above last years earnings. my portfolio is 20% larger.
earnings at Istock has been down for me since the announcement, lower than june,july and august, which are meant to be some of the lowest earning months.
probably ebb and flow + I haven't uploaded (my massive protest hitting hard at those heartless getty executives in their ivory towers) since the announcement which wouldn't help.
785
« on: October 07, 2010, 14:53 »
Accepted today
Congrats qwerty!
I have a qwerty and nothing here..! Respect the queue Peter, no answer to that?
 I've been waiting for many many months, I can't remember exactly how long. I can assure you I had to wait in the que
786
« on: October 07, 2010, 06:08 »
Im backing the small firms to survive. Although big firms do dominate I think the smaller ones that keep their costs down and business steady, like Photaki.com , will be a good bet! Although sales may sometimes be low, you can rely on the smaller ones to be competing and innovating constantly-purely because they need to to stay in the game. And we should be supporting that!!
New member and pumping photaki every post ? Never heard of them, maybe change your name to photaki.
787
« on: October 07, 2010, 05:43 »
Accepted today
788
« on: October 06, 2010, 15:25 »
Sorry but for me the only actions I need to take are to get out and take more/better pics, make my portfolio better and increase my revenues that way. Everyone speaks about going and taking action, yet they want everyone else to do it for them so they don't have to. I'm not pretending to want action taken when I'm not going to do it myself.
^^ Agree!
I feel my time is more productively spent shooting too. I pay my representatives 50-80% to take action for me. Seems like for that hefty rate they should be counted on to do it!
and soon it will be 50-85% for alot of people
789
« on: October 05, 2010, 04:59 »
Hi Peter! There a few pretty small agencies approving and reviewing photos pretty soon with 3 or 4 persons.. I just don't understand why you aren't? Are the reviews like IS, more than 1 week? I dont get it sorry..! I am talking about GLO
No, usually reviews are done within a day and we'd like to keep it that way. If you don't get it, do the math. If 700 new contributors are trying to upload their whole portfolio at the same time with a 25 images / day quota, there's no way you're going to be able to inspect everything properly with 3 people.
I'd settle for 50 a week if I was approved.
790
« on: October 05, 2010, 04:54 »
I must say I got a response from Pixmac very quickly
Basically Colossus is as I thought another agency that supplies pixmac, they wouldn't confirm where colossus gets their images.
I am sure though that it is via bigstock,
so third hand by the time they get to Pixmac
791
« on: October 04, 2010, 05:23 »
just checked to see if my photos are on there. Some are available and have come from fotolia and dreamstime, one I found is credited to another photographer not me. I have sent a message hopefully it is rectified quickly.
edited
Photographer Colossus with 294,045 photos in portfolio. Maybe another agency ? bigstock ??
792
« on: October 02, 2010, 18:27 »
not cost effective for me.
Anybody used dreamstime keywording for 50cents ?
793
« on: October 02, 2010, 18:14 »
I use to get a few 5cents from this but havent seen any for months and months, I'm guessing its not available anymore for buyers
794
« on: October 01, 2010, 07:04 »
I've stopped uploading since the announcement, waiting to see what happens
795
« on: October 01, 2010, 04:54 »
brian, thanks for the update and your presence here is MSG.
hoping sales will increase
796
« on: October 01, 2010, 02:29 »
I don't know how many you define "some" but if not that many it may be better just to pay someone else to do compared to buying an expensive scanner.
Of course if you have hundreds or thousands it may be worth buying one.
797
« on: September 28, 2010, 04:42 »
picking cherries, search on:
dog
woman
car
environment
communication
computer network
computer
all as per usual search returns....
edited sorry I read incorrectly
798
« on: September 27, 2010, 04:24 »
looks like a wide spread problem, I've got it too
799
« on: September 26, 2010, 04:26 »
A protfolie should be priced according to the renevue it produces.
If your port for instance gives you a 2.000 USD annual renevue, it could be looked at as the yearly interest for the asset (the portfolio).
At a marked interest of for instance 4% the value of the portfolio should be 50.000 $
The above assuming, that the portfolio continues to produce a renevue.
If the renevues goes down - for instance to aging or depleation, the values also goes down.
Yes I agree but the big question is how much it goes down. Answer that and then you can come up with a value
800
« on: September 26, 2010, 03:50 »
also the upload limits could be too low to split between multiple members
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... 42
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
