|
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 - YadaYadaYada
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 64
801
« on: January 19, 2017, 21:42 »
I wish SS used the title field instead of the description field. 123 as well.
I don't much care which is which, but some uniformity would be helpful for contributors.
You can't plan for anything with the mish-mash of rules. Rules about minimum and maximum lengths as well as whether one or both fields are used.
It'd be great if sites read both fields and let us pick which to use (if they allowed only one).
Agree, have to make the title blank so FT reads description. But get ready for Alamy that reads Headlines from Origins tab. Add one more. Uniformity would be good.
802
« on: January 19, 2017, 21:24 »
What's a CR and how do we create one?
You might well ask! Still, some answers come reasonably quickly, even if not all.
I see ticket and scout I don't know what a CR is?
803
« on: January 19, 2017, 21:13 »
Their new head of IT is doing a bang-up job so far!
+ Shutterstock has a server and site problem. This is news? The thread for SS problems and broken should be things that aren't broken to keep it shorter.
804
« on: January 19, 2017, 21:02 »
You should delete as much work as possible. I would reommend starting with your best sellers in any niche that competes with me.
Exactly. Please tell me what areas you shoot chess1master, and I'll match against mine. Delete all competing images would be the best plan. Asking this question makes me doubt that you are a chess anything.
805
« on: January 19, 2017, 20:59 »
I was't clear. I have variable portfolio, but now I am seeing the future in small niche portfolios, or in very large. In my opinion I need in my portfolio the very best pics, the other 68-95% (statisticaly 1-2 standard deviation interval, sellings probably copying normal distribution - delete them. In every minute I am losing many USD with care with my database, uploads, feedbacks, statistics, kw, etc.).
No, you were clear. There's no need to delete work from the micros to make your port smaller. It won't result in any more sales.
I don't know why people think removing product from the market will increase exposure or sales? I don't know of any buyers who look at the rest of my portfolio of sliced vegetables when they are buying a shot of a flying duck or an isolated pickle.
806
« on: January 19, 2017, 20:48 »
Solid state drives are very fast if that's the bottleneck.
Seagate, WD and Toshiba drives are all about the same. They are all good and reliable. Sometimes things fail. I've had a Sandisk card fail and they are tested and most reliable.
Check out the new solid state drives claimed to be 5-6 times faster than conventional drives. No parts that move.
807
« on: January 19, 2017, 20:22 »
XP not supported just for those handing onto old computers. http://www.deepmeta.com/Support/Articles/V3/IMPORTANT: Your current data in DeepMeta will not be transferred to DeepMeta 3, which will start up empty! Until Feb 1st, you are advised to limit the number of non-uploaded files in DeepMeta to a minimum! At least DM is staying up to date with things. Franky is a good man.
808
« on: January 19, 2017, 20:15 »
What's a CR and how do we create one?
809
« on: January 19, 2017, 19:42 »
But they wrote us, Scheduled for January 3, 2017
iStock.com contributor tools will be retired on www.istockphoto.com/xnet
Login details for the ESP Platform sent to iStockers
iStock contributor tools become available via the ESP Platform. It's now weeks past that and what we got instead was, maybe February. Meanwhile they did retire the iStock information feed. The ESP platform is integrated with the Getty Images keywording tree.Your old keywords won't work anymore and a new version of DM is coming. Data will not be available the same as it was, but might be in the future. The new platform should be better, easier and more friendly. I hope it is. After the usual SNAFUs I'm not confident. Then they say, Our next official update will come in December when we share details of the main differences between uploading at iStock.com and the new batch functionality with ESP Upload.This notice was emailed January 18th 2017. Does that deflate your confidence?  Maybe they mean December 2017? I don't know anymore.
810
« on: January 19, 2017, 19:28 »
Many of mine gone too. Applied to Getty but it had no terms and no promise of a reply. Looking more hopeless on IS as they make everything more difficult and less rewarding with every new announcement.
811
« on: January 02, 2017, 11:40 »
stockastic! I am dropping SS as well. Close to 23000 files uploaded but I cant stomach it anymore. Too much spamming and short term sort changes. They accept anything just anything as long as its technically alright. Bugs and glitches everywhere and all the time.
I am in the process of asking them to delete all this in favour of throwing them in to a macro agency. I might lose out a bit the first year but at least I am rid of all this nonsense.
I might also sleep better at nights. haha!
Maybe nature photos just don't do that well on Micro. I hope you find a better home for your work. Really not worth the time and effort to continue here on the forum.
812
« on: January 02, 2017, 11:17 »
Really not worth the time and effort to continue. For everybody else, if the agency says you can't upload or sell something, that's their decision, not necessarily the law.
813
« on: January 01, 2017, 18:40 »
I can get into the Getty Forum using my usual Istock login details. Perhaps you have something wrong?
The forums there appear to indicate that this is a temporary problem, and support provided this link to view stats for the time being: http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?id=000000&Offset=-1&DownloadsGraphFileType
Hope it helps you until the site mess is sorted out.
Don't see balance anywhere, there or stats, financials and just looked, more is missing. Balance Total, not monthly?
814
« on: January 01, 2017, 10:46 »
Not a good month, relatively speaking, but slightly up compared with my previous December 
Pretty much the same here. Better then 2015, very close behind 2014. Dec. is not a good month in general. Funny how that works. Worst month 2016 was March. Best month 2015 was March. Here's to 2017.
815
« on: January 01, 2017, 10:37 »
People keep saying they can see their total earnings but for me there is nothing. Nada. I don't get it. Seriously thinking of leaving.
They had total earnings on the finance tab but that now is gone for me too. So I have ZERO visibility to my sales, other than the briefcase to see what images sold.
Briefcase shows nothing since Dec 23rd unless there is nothing. Financials and total are gone, I can't see anything. I downloaded the CSV and it doesn't seem to have updated anything since the 23rd. Downloaded with DM, no change. If I'm understanding right on the IS forum, we won't get anything until Feb 1st. I hope I'm wrong, but that means data and earnings blackout for a month. I know it won't change what I get or what sells, but I still like to know. About the only happy moment I expect is the day they go live and I get one months sales in one day. With the new program and commissions and potential for 2c subs, I'd like to see what's going on, instead of being in the dark for a month? I'm starting to admire the people who left last month for the piece of mind they can have knowing they aren't getting this reem job from getty.
816
« on: January 01, 2017, 10:15 »
you said: "unnonimus, a question. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later, to have all her photos removed, and sue me, because she's become famous and she doesn't want them on Microstock. With a proper legal release can a model change her mind after the fact?
What's your official legal opinion on this question unnonimus?"
only a court of law can make that determination.
Nice dodge, you claim to know the law better then the agencies. If I have a model release, signed and witnessed, can a model come after me years later to stop selling the images? If unnonimus comes to a forum and posts that we can license and sell images of the Hollywood sign, does that mean it's legal and we can? Please read before you answer, https://www.trademarkaccess.com/trademark-registration/hollywood-trademark-registration/Its not just the use of the actual Hollywood sign that they are protecting under their trademark registrations. They also monitor for trade dress violations for infringing uses that may not fall under a trademark registration. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/bb-hollywood-trademark-dispute-383648Not only can't we use the actual Hollywood sign, we can't create a similar design that looks like the Hollywood sign. One more time. What agencies take or refuse, doesn't translate to they don't know the law, which is your flawed assumption. They choose what they will accept which has no direct association with the law being the reason they don't take some things. They make their own rules. Some of them take subjects and scenes which are outside the legal rights of photographers to sell or license. FAA will some day get a fat lawsuit that could put them out of business.
817
« on: January 01, 2017, 09:55 »
Sunday 6am January 1st 2017
Happy New Year!
Shouldn't this be, how's 2017 so far? Based on my sales, it's going to be a terrible year. Happy New Year everyone!
818
« on: January 01, 2017, 09:46 »
The artists here are creative and working towards their business and earnings, many times, watch and see what's really going on in the industry better then the people in the big offices and agencies.
I'd be surprised. That would be like one guy who just sells fries, in one McDonald's franchise, being able to predict how all the different McDonald's products do across all the different outlets. Surely Ronald and Hamburgler would have a better handle on the way the market is going, even if their sat in their big offices? Sure, historical data doesn't always predict the future, but I'd rather put my trust in somebody who knows exactly what's selling, at what price, what's being uploaded, with what keywords, and what search terms are used resulting in what sales... compared to all of that from previous periods... than a handful of dudes in a forum who represent less than 1% of the market.
Don't get me wrong, there's a bunch of talented and intelligent people around here, that have been around long enough to know a thing or two... but I really don't think any of us have a large enough portfolio, with high enough sales, and portfolio diversity (compared to any one site as a whole, or the entire market for that matter) to make any meaningful predictions.
Yes and no. I think the people here are closer then some of the meatheads with suits that run businesses by profit and loss, instead of from the creative side. It would be nice if agencies gave us good data to work with, like what keywords are selling the most. If they put up their version some of them are what they think are popular keywords, not what's actually being downloaded. And most searched words is like asking somebody what did they look at, before they bought what they had for lunch. No sale doesn't interest me. I have some files on IS with the most views of anything I have. Ten years, not one download. I'll guess, interesting subject and poor photo. Anyway predictions are fun and yes I trust the people here who watch and study or plan to have better ideas then somebody being interviewed who's talking about their individual work and direction, not the market for all of us. I don't expect much of either to be right. The secret to success is determining how to best & quickly capitalize on changing conditions, before the competition does.
819
« on: January 01, 2017, 09:36 »
On an unrelated note, all the images in the article are from offset.
In the case of the main banner image, the shot of the man walking on a sand dune, the web version is a 72dpi jpeg 1200px x 725px for $250 on offset. But If you right click on that banner image (control click on a mac) and select "view background image" you get an unwatermarked jpeg that's 72dpi 1440px x 960px, no charge.
You'd think SS would take some precautions like using some kind of watermark or at least embedding the photographer's cred directly on the image. Or use some js to disable right clicking. Something to protect their contributors. Just a pet peeve of mine.
"Locks only keep an honest man honest", anybody with two cents of computer knowledge or photo edit skill can defeat any image protection or watermarks on the web. Right click is the least difficult to bypass of them. If you can see a photo on the web, it's already on your computer!
You might consider a new pet peeve that has some substance or value?
The article is the same old garbage we get every year. What the agency wants us to think they know or are promoting. These artists are guessing just like any of us would if we were asked to predict the future. Some of it is last years news. Some is wishful thinking for what they would like to see, because that's their direction. At least that I can enjoy as creative direction.
I was happy to see the prediction that old photo look filtering was going away. I thought the guy who says film will make a comeback is stuck in the good old days. The best parts are still ahead, not looking back at what's obsolete and gone.
We need our own thread on what's in the future for stock photography and I'll bet it's more correct then the SS or Getty articles.
I'll manage my own pet peeves if it's all the same to you.
If you can see a photo on the web, it's already on your computer!
True to a point. What decade do you think it is? A decade ago you could look through your browser cache and easily find images stored there but if you were to root through your browser cache now, you might find it more trouble than it's worth to try to get at the cached images.
You are right about one thing though, it is impossible to keep people from getting their hands on images if they have the knowledge. However, the number of people with that knowledge is far lower than you believe. Placing a transparent .png over the image for example will mean when people right click the image they get the png instead of the photo. Javascript to disable right clicking also works for 95% of users. Most web users are not developers or experts in these things. And what's wrong with a stock photo agency taking all the precautions they can?
Throwing your hands up and saying, people can get to the images if they want to so why bother even trying is a sad sad attitude.
I don't know why I bother, won't happen again.
I wasn't throwing my hands up, I was pointing out that disabling right click is a waste of time. Somebody who wants to steal anything off the web, can. Your argument was how terrible it was that they didn't disable right click to protect contributors. I'll guess you figure the whole web should have watermarks and no right click, because people might steal a photo? I have an idea. Write to SS and complain to the source. Or do you figure it's futile and a waste of time. What did you think of the article and the opinions besides being completely distracted by a nice looking photo without watermark?
820
« on: December 31, 2016, 13:15 »
Thanks YadaYadaYada but the link doesn't seem to go anywhere...
Sorry about that seems both of us linked to the same locked thread and the forum just goes to the main page. Follow the link and look down the list for "Adobe Stock Contributor Site now live!" locked thread in blue. Read the first post from Mat that explains much of the details for us. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/topics.html
821
« on: December 31, 2016, 13:07 »
I think the people here are smarter and more astute then most of the articles and predictions we'll be seeing in the following weeks. The artists here are creative and working towards their business and earnings, many times, watch and see what's really going on in the industry better then the people in the big offices and agencies.
What's the future, colors, composition, trends, styles, subjects?
What do you see for the future 2017? What will be most popular for the next year.
I'm asking about images, not doom and gloom about how we get paid more or less. Somebody can start another thread for that please.
822
« on: December 31, 2016, 13:00 »
On an unrelated note, all the images in the article are from offset.
In the case of the main banner image, the shot of the man walking on a sand dune, the web version is a 72dpi jpeg 1200px x 725px for $250 on offset. But If you right click on that banner image (control click on a mac) and select "view background image" you get an unwatermarked jpeg that's 72dpi 1440px x 960px, no charge.
You'd think SS would take some precautions like using some kind of watermark or at least embedding the photographer's cred directly on the image. Or use some js to disable right clicking. Something to protect their contributors. Just a pet peeve of mine.
"Locks only keep an honest man honest", anybody with two cents of computer knowledge or photo edit skill can defeat any image protection or watermarks on the web. Right click is the least difficult to bypass of them. If you can see a photo on the web, it's already on your computer! You might consider a new pet peeve that has some substance or value? The article is the same old garbage we get every year. What the agency wants us to think they know or are promoting. These artists are guessing just like any of us would if we were asked to predict the future. Some of it is last years news. Some is wishful thinking for what they would like to see, because that's their direction. At least that I can enjoy as creative direction. I was happy to see the prediction that old photo look filtering was going away. I thought the guy who says film will make a comeback is stuck in the good old days. The best parts are still ahead, not looking back at what's obsolete and gone. We need our own thread on what's in the future for stock photography and I'll bet it's more correct then the SS or Getty articles.
823
« on: December 30, 2016, 19:30 »
I suspect a lot of their sales are to contributors themselves - people buying their own images on coffee cups and bags - and also to their friends and relatives. That might be why the upload process is impossibly slow; they really don't care about supporting people with a lot of images that will make only a very few sales over time.
I suspect you just hit that point hard. Some of the best sellers on FFA were using it for fulfillment. Nobody was going to buy that many dog portraits with some wonky stars and flares filer. Guy sold them over and over. Zazzle maybe more of the same. I looked at yours and I also do landscape and cityscape type of work. Which now that I think about it may also be part of the problem for both of us. If you look at the Society6 homepage it's unique custom illustrations and artsy stuff for the younger crowd. Younger people aren't going to buy a picture of a city for a tshirt. So in general the buyers they market to may not be right for landscape/cityscape work and for selling more expensive prints.
Also a good point. Not for most photos, cityscape or landscape. More for designs and artsy artwork patterns. I sold enough to leave Zazzle, it was greeting cards, ties and phone cases. Not worth the effort. Somebody who does graphics would be much better there and these product places. Or maybe Etsy or eBay, make your own product, fulfill on one of the sites when ordered.
824
« on: December 30, 2016, 19:21 »
The sales info is moving off the iS site, but allegedly will be better, if later. Hmm.
First the forums, now the stats. Do you think they'll eventually just phase out the istock site altogether and just roll it all into Getty?
The stats are going onto extra-sensory perception, apparently.
I've long stopped trying to second guess them. It's always been worse than I imagined so far, and I see no reason to assume that will change.
And there we can agree 100%. CCS, ESP, RCT, ASA, Unification. They speak in acronyms and corporate symbolic double talk. Maybe in 2017 they will introduce the secret decoder book? I honestly don't know what ESP is other then psychics and perception.
825
« on: December 30, 2016, 18:29 »
hmm, yes a disconnect indeed. Are you talking stills? I only do video and the interface on fotolia is a manual cut and paste into html forms...there isn't even an 'import csv' to mass import data...is there something I'm missing?
There's the answer. Yes I do stills, no video. Got it now.
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... 64
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
