|
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 - Elenathewise
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36
801
« on: January 29, 2009, 21:54 »
Heeeee..... I loved your original post... good sense of humor:) Got a good laugh, thank you:)
802
« on: January 22, 2009, 20:32 »
In my opinion, helping doesn't hurt anyone. The thing is, if the person is talented and determined, he/she will achieve their goals no matter if you help them or not. They will find out about those "secrets" and "tricks" on their own, by trial and error, books, internet. By sharing some info you make their life a little bit easier, giving them a bit of a shortcut, but you're not changing a big picture. And for the people who are not able to find out about those "tricks" themselves, no amount of help will actually help. It's a no lose situation. And helping others actually makes you feel nice, instead of feeling like an a**hole:)
803
« on: January 21, 2009, 23:40 »
Hi Niserin,
Sales on SS have been down a bit recently, everyone noticed that. People blame the economy, too many images, subscriptions... maybe it's just Shutterstock's marketing problems, who knows. Agencies rise and fall, I've been surprised recently with what I thought were hopeless sites starting having sales, and promising sites just closing their doors out of the blue.
I do think there is still enough market out there to support our living:)
Elena.
804
« on: January 20, 2009, 14:49 »
yup i heard about that before - i think there is even a law suit against Getty for selling images for such low prices (RM ones I think). I think it happens when a buyer gets a large number of images at once, kinda volume deal, similar to subscription model. Still, wouldn't that sale allow you to upload one more image?
805
« on: January 20, 2009, 13:20 »
thanks to all again:) I was also confused about the size of the images for test submission, so what I did just set up a page off my webpage ( www.elenaphoto.com) where I posted 40 web-size images that are not currently selling anywhere, and sent that link. It looks like they don't examine the technical quality of your photos from the test submission, just the creative quality.
806
« on: January 15, 2009, 11:09 »
Aww! I got that email too instead of a payment! I thought noone's getting paid but looks like it's selected few that have to wait till end of the month. Not cool....
807
« on: January 14, 2009, 17:51 »
Thank you everyone, I'll keep you posted:)
808
« on: January 14, 2009, 15:08 »
Elena, after looking at your images, I cant imagine that you wouldn't do great at Getty. Your stuff is much better than what I have produced so far so definitely go for it.
Thank you for your kind words:) Will try it out, hope I'll have some statistics to post at the end of this year.
809
« on: January 14, 2009, 15:05 »
No I don't have vectors in my portfolio, only photos. What sold as Fotosearch regular were some people and food shots.
810
« on: January 14, 2009, 12:37 »
Thank you very much again stock shooter. About 10 for for free - this is what their email seems to be saying, I don't have any official links to that info. Maybe they just changed their policy (I remember looking this up a while ago and it was 10 for 250 deal). We'll see if this really works:)
811
« on: January 14, 2009, 12:13 »
One more question - these 19 images - what subject they are? (if you don't mind my asking)
Thanks,
Elena.
812
« on: January 14, 2009, 12:09 »
Thanks a lot stock shooter, this is very helpful. It looks like now I can submit initial 10 for free, so I should try this out.
813
« on: January 14, 2009, 11:52 »
I have been having 20-25 dollar sales from Fotosearch every few days, plus some subscriptions - I am quite happy with this. Way to go Canstock:)
814
« on: January 14, 2009, 11:18 »
About a month ago I sent test submission to Getty and today got a reply. What I am offered is "Photographer's Choice Placement Fee Collections", which basically means you have to pay 50 dollars per image placement fee, before any possible earnings. Is it even worth trying out? With prices going down and sales being slow, will I ever see my 50 bucks per image back? Anyone has experience with this?
All comments are welcome,
Elena.
815
« on: January 04, 2009, 00:32 »
I would love to be able to work on one photo for 4 days at a time but it's tough to get that plan to function financially. 
Oh I would love to be able to do that so much:) Sometimes I do get carried away and spend way more time on an image that's financially reasonable - but those are also times when I learn, and that's priceless:)
816
« on: January 03, 2009, 19:29 »
I felt successful when I was able to leave my corporate job and do this full-time, which was about a year ago. I feel successful when I get good acceptance rate on a batch or when I add a very good seller to my portfolio. I expected my returns to grow better than they turned out to be in 2008, but there was still growth, so it can be called a successful year. I have done absolutely NOTHING over the holidays, didn't even take my camera out - it's the first couple of weeks in 3 years that I have allowed myself to take time off. I was feeling pretty burned out too! I do feel much better now and hope to increase my downloads per image ratio - that would be a measure of success for me at this point.
817
« on: December 03, 2008, 12:33 »
Elenathewise!
Good thinking! leave the shots as they are and let them earn you a few bucks. Uploading is ofcourse a total waste of time ( dont think I have to mention that).
Acting in anger and temper is no solution here because for some weird reason, that might be exactly what Getty wants, in order to keep their exclusives at least somewhat happy.
There are Oceans, tons of buyers out there, IS is just one little outlet.
best Christian
Agreed:)
818
« on: December 03, 2008, 12:11 »
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
600+ DL / day is what is preventing him to do so.
Actually we should all (non-exclusives) pull are entire portfolios. I'm sure IS wouldn't like that. But why aren't we doing that ?? -> $$$$$$
Perrush, thx. money talks ! loud and clear. toe the line and fawn. i guess that's it.
like the lyrics to a Jethro TUll song, "they've got you by the b#lls!" 
Well with things going like they are I don't think any of us would be really affected money-wise if we pulled our portfolios from Istock. For me right now it's 10% of my income, and getting smaller! So if they really piss me off enough, I'll do it. It's not going to affect much my income at all. However, me pulling stuff off the site is not going to affect them too! Funny thing buyers don't buy the very best image the library has, but the one that pops on the first few pages of the search. I just had that with Fotolia - they f**k around with their search mechanism too, and I have this image of three red gift boxes that I hate - it was taken 3 years ago when I had Canon Powershot G2 and didn't know what I was doing. It keeps selling like crazy, although there are hundreds of much better pictures of the same subject. So i increased the price just for fun, to 2 credits for XS and 125 for EL. Guess what - after that it has sold 6 times a day PLUS EL. So the point I am trying to make - Istock will be still fine without us (unfortunately) as long as they manage to bring sufficient number of customers to the site, and clients will be buying stuff that somehow correspond to their needs and easy to find. It would take a mass exodus of micro photographers from Istock to actually hurt them, but then again, with things going the way they are we may just see that...
819
« on: December 02, 2008, 23:47 »
Hi Lagereek,
Just to start off I want to say I really enjoy your posts. They are very informative and I feel show a great deal of depth to your understanding and knowledge of this industry. A true pleasure to read.
I know this industry isn't what it was even two years ago but Getty still controls the major portion of the stock market by a huge margin. That is still a pretty big shadow. I would like to see the market separated up as much as possible. I think that would give photographers a more secure future with greater options. Let's hope that occurs. I have the feeling it won't in the near future.
Best,
AVAVA
I agree - I enjoy the posts of Lagereek as well. I suspect Getty is doing what Microsoft did in it's time - buy off the viable competitors and either incorporate them or quietly put the pillow over their faces. I used to work for IBM and they did the same thing. It's a common corporate strategy. And yes AVAVA I agree with you as well - I don't see them (Getty) giving up their position any time soon. Didn't they just buy Jupiter? And Stockxpert as a part of it as well? With Istock, it's either "let's kill it slowly" position, or (which is oh so common in corporate environment) just plain stupidity. Both are viable versions. It just might be that people who were put in charge of Istock have no clue whatsoever about micro's specifics and the way micros work. Looks like they are trying to apply their macro policies to Istock, which is totally ridiculous. Sad, but again - not unheard of in corporations. That's why I still can't bring myself to shooting "business corporate" stuff - I know that inside out, and it stinks!:) Scarred for life, Elena:)
820
« on: November 30, 2008, 13:51 »
Cool thanks - will take a look!
821
« on: November 30, 2008, 13:39 »
Ok that makes sense - thanks. What's RR image?
822
« on: November 30, 2008, 11:52 »
Thanks - that helps a lot. When I am expected to produce the purchase history for an image - is this on individual image/customer basis?
823
« on: November 30, 2008, 00:09 »
Can someone please help me with this.
I have realized that I am a bit confused about RM licensing. So it stands for "Rights Managed". However it doesn't have to be exclusive. So let's say I sell RM with one agency. Since it doesn't have to be exclusive, I can sell the same RM images on another agency, right? As long as they are RM, not RF.
But then how do people manage the situation when an image is sold with certain rights on one agency - do you have to notify another agency? Does agency manage the rights or the photographer?
And what's the point of RM if it's not exclusive? Or is it exclusive to certain industry?
Would appreciate if someone could clarify this for me.
Thanks in advance,
Elena.
824
« on: November 24, 2008, 22:47 »
WOW:)
Love the photos from the shoot. The lighting in beautiful.
Timelapse was fun to watch - looks like very efficient use of studio time, too.
825
« on: November 06, 2008, 11:04 »
hehehe - too funny:) I liked that very much.
On a serious note though if anyone took Istock to court for discrimination of non-exclusive photographers (like RM photogs did with Getty for ridiculous pricing), I'd definitely join.
I mean, how can you justify commercially that you have to push non-exclusive content down in search engine ranking? Does every Istock customer want only exclusive content??? What's wrong with adding "search exclusive images only" to the search options instead of making it mandatory?
And sorting by relevance by default?
Istock's recent policies defy all common sense. Sure, promote your exclusive content, encourage people to go exclusive by offering them higher payouts, but why they are pushishing non-exclusive contributors??? For earning them money? With 80% of profits going to them??
Somebody please do something about this insanity....
Pages: 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
