|
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 - etudiante_rapide
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 79
826
« on: December 04, 2015, 11:00 »
Lots of openings for human reviewers (See the Content category):
http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs/listings
not surprising. this is as i said, no one is , not even adobe , is asking for 7/10 admission criterion. ss is not lossening the reins, but more in retaining market exposure and preventing the runoff to adobe. if anyone can submitting everything to fotolia, and gawd, i took a look at my work which i used to have at fotolia and i am shocked today i could even do such bad work that passed ft and failed rightly so at is and ss. and that was years ago before adobe. now, there is a need for human reviewers at ss, in order to trim the larger incoming works of new people. as for the old established ppl who already have maintained a high %age of approval, i see the auto-review being used. this , or else, you risk losing new contributors to adobe. so, i see this as a smart move for ss. and also a smart move for contributors too. as i said, with a higher competition of newbies and oldies, you can only profit from this if ss do not lose out to adobe. why waste time wishing ss lose to adobe? you did that once with canva, veer, stocksy,etc.. none of these have the resume history of earning money like ss does for us. i still go where the money is now... and it is still ss. love or hate them...only ss puts $$$ in my pocket each month.
827
« on: December 03, 2015, 14:42 »
Istock makes this mistake two years ago... crap flood is coming... Shutter now is Istock and Shutter is Adobe.
how do you figure that i don't see Adobe asking for 7/10 to be a contributor
828
« on: December 03, 2015, 14:25 »
I don't think it is good for anybody. As a purchaser of stock it is getting harder and harder to sift through all of the really bad or just mediocre images. Often there will be 20 or 30 bad images from the same shoot, just slightly different from each other. They would never have all been accepted in the past.
And as a contributor, I think it just lowers the image of microstock across the board.
As a purchaser, even though clients don't like spending the money and I don't like the hassle, I am being driven back to Rights Managed just to more easily find quality images.
you can be a follower of the ppl whose works you like. this way, you won't need to sift through everything that comes in. i noticed that with my "followers" as i see a regular downloading trend which i assumed is due to these clients who FOLLOW me.
829
« on: December 03, 2015, 14:23 »
I think that this is part of the natural evolution of a microstock company, first they are flexible with aceptance because they need a huge number of images to compete in the market, but when they have a decent gallery, then they get more rigorous with the acceptance, and accept only the elite ones.
In the other hand, it is also a good way to control the exponential growing of contributors/images, and give everybody a decent income.
I really think that this is not a bad new at all.
if i understand you correctly, i too think it could work out better for ss. we all started badly with the other right hand side column of agencies before we attempted to join ss. and as someone once pointed out, even Yuri was not very good at the beginning of his career. so once again, letting the door open wider could work to their advantage of not losing a potential good contributor to adobe,etc where it is easier to start. or you can go Canva way to accept everything and then delete everything later. Mrblues101, what's your opinion on that???
830
« on: December 03, 2015, 09:47 »
i agree with jo ann (more like rejecting everything ...like is) and disorderly (not sure it's a bad thing). yes, there is some sort of automation going on, as evident in the instant rejection or approval. not sure how they do it; must be based on histogram or whatever technical genius created by Brainiac . or perharps it is based on ratio of approval/rejection historically of our portfolio. disorderly , you're right in that there is a review after that initial auto-review. i think it will do the new contributors a lot good too, in that , those who take the rejection seriously will quickly learn the ropes of what ss wants and not want. as opposed to having them submit their best 10 to get in with 7/10. we all know that even we too still sometimes submit the wrong stuff and fail 6/10 even after so many years, or when we try to get on a new niche and experiment which ss may or may not think it's something they like to have. still, consider that ss is still our best and by far biggest earner, i will not say it's a bad thing. the more rejections they get with the new contributors; they better we look to them 
831
« on: December 01, 2015, 20:25 »
that made me chuckle, a good move but at the same time for a while now theyve put in a aweful lot of effort to reduce micro earnings
Glad I could be your entertainment. I'm guessing with Offset the payout isn't .25 cents on a $500 sale. My point was that with SS moving upmarket it may be good for overall prices in the market to also start moving back up.
agree PW. not just moving micro in the right direction (up) but also give Offset some sort of a trad stock perception. there are lots of non-micro situations we can contribute to Offset once ss show us there is a market for higher earning images. as someone once said here, we learn to give low cost productions to micro but other than locally, we do not have yet a trad agency i like to subscribe. Given the comments in the article, what is the point of the "apply to contribute" link then?
Maybe the article isn't accurate. Or more likely it's to give buyers the perception there's separation between cheap subscription amateurs and special premium photographers. And maybe also scarcity. Nothing makes people want something more than what they can't have. Ya know, like the elite VIP club where you're special.
and no, as you said, i too am not looking to join some elite club either.
832
« on: December 01, 2015, 13:42 »
are you new to ss? is this your application submission?
i cannot say for everyone as i am sure it varies.
but for me, it's pretty fast. sometimes i get approvals (and rejections) almost instantly,
while others get approved overnight and sometimes 2, 3 days at the most.
i suppose 3 wks if this is a regular upload after being accepted as a contributor,
it might seem a bit long ... for me , at least.
best thing to do, is always to write to them if you feel it's being lost, or ignored.
in my case, as i said before, it's never been something CONTACT US ever ignore...
they usually respond in 2,3 days too.
hope this helps.
833
« on: November 30, 2015, 21:14 »
are they still rejecting you based on the first image??? if so, as woody says, you're going to have trouble with ss.
but really, if it is still based on the first image, you should be more critical on your batch of the at least first 10 or 20 images so it passes alamy's not so stringent group audit.
if you cannot have the even first 5 images up to par, it is no wonder you are having trouble with alamy.
When getting help from you is another place being not up to par. Alamy moves the rejected picture to the first spot, it isn't the first image submitted, it's to make it easy to see what was rejected. Another lost point on your credibility and made up facts about microstock list. You do that once a week, and better then anybody else here.
LOL you must follow my every comment like a sick puppy following his shadow. I must have hurt you really bad in your past life for you to be so totally anal about every little comment i make. don't keep following my a*se , you must hurt yourself when i start to f*rt 
834
« on: November 29, 2015, 17:32 »
taking the issues mentioned by the previous 2 comments, i will comment on "over-processing".
the thing is these days with digital cameras, you don't need to guess if you had a good shot or not like in the old days of film.
you can shoot all day or night until you get the correct exposure .
so, this is what you should be doing... your homework to get the best exposure of any scene.
shoot, bracket, and take it home to inspect your best combo of shutterspeed and f stop at the optimum ISO .. usually 100, or 200 depending on your camera.
then this optimum exposure will not require you to do any more post processing except for colour balance and spotting or fringe-removal.
you can then have yourself a nice clean image that is not "over"processed.
don't waste time rescue a bad image due to poor lighting or incorrect exposure. re shoot.
you are not in a situation where it is a once in a lifetime shot like say.. the eclipse of the moon or whatever. always go for the best exposure and the least post processing.
you will then get into a habit of this workflow and see less rejections.
835
« on: November 29, 2015, 14:02 »
Now I see you submitted them at Canstock.
Forget that agency for now. Try to concentrate on the big ones, to start with shutterstock.
well said hansenn. ss is the only place you earn money. and whatever is rejected by ss, you can be sure will be accepted everywhere else . if you dare, leave only the approved ones with ss, so you don't cannibalize your work. and maybe after awhile, when these are not getting downloaded in ss, then you can give them to the rest of the world  what i say this is that, once your earners get you money at ss, it will continue to make money for you, so you won't want to cannibalize these giving them elsewhere. but for the non-starters, give them to everyone else. best of luck. hint" ... just stay away from those images with shadows. ss do not like shadows and tight cropping . isolated images, make sure the white background is white... not off white. and careful with your wb. that's all. whatever, at this stage, take everything ss rejections seriously. you can improve your work if you accept the approval as standard you maintain, and the rejection is a hint of what ss does not like. except for that one reviewer who will reject everything in one single swoop. what that happens, wait a bit, then re-submit and hope you don't get atilla 's evil baby again but overall, 90% of the reviewers are good ppl.
836
« on: November 28, 2015, 16:43 »
One good one or 50000 bad ones.
+1. get out now, while you have a brain.If this were 2003/2005 I would say different.
+1 SLP +1 VBI +1 R VBinc says it best. if i had known back then when my freelance market was shrinking and some kind cursed soul suggested i try stock photography... that the time and energy spent on creating, processing, submitting , + hours cussing at the fri*gging rejections i got at the beginning even though i got in on the 2nd try... etc in total the hours i put in for stock photography, i would be better-off today had i spent those xxxxxxx hours doing cold calls to hustle for business, instead of getting into stock photography with ss, etc..
837
« on: November 28, 2015, 12:31 »
Its gonna suck even more when you get rejections
logeeker, save this link for future reference:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/shutterstock-reviewers-beating-me-up-anyone-else/
i) and don't submit anything that looks like your avatar or likely to get rejected for ...(poor lighting condition)(poor composition) ii) shoot as many marijuana on white as possible (better still , go in and give them a box of stuff and say it 's for the reviewer who adores marijuana spam
838
« on: November 27, 2015, 19:28 »
...After all, they are still THE original microstock agency, and they're doing a hell of a better job than Shutterstock or Fotolia!
I don't understand the above. DT was one of the early agencies, but it wasn't the original - iStock was. As far as DT, Canstock, SS go, I don't know which came first, but they were all new-ish in 2004 when I came upon them. Fotolia didn't start until 2005
And how is DT doing a better job than SS? Not in earnings or collection size or search or anything else I can think of.
lmao, perharps at playing dead, and just living on free images
839
« on: November 27, 2015, 19:08 »
are they still rejecting you based on the first image??? if so, as woody says, you're going to have trouble with ss.
but really, if it is still based on the first image, you should be more critical on your batch of the at least first 10 or 20 images so it passes alamy's not so stringent group audit.
if you cannot have the even first 5 images up to par, it is no wonder you are having trouble with alamy.
840
« on: November 27, 2015, 17:15 »
not sure where they are going with this...unless it is for authentication. since you are not supposed to manipulate much for editorials. still, they could have just ask to send the original RAW to show nothing much was manipulated other than cc and balance of levels and contrast.
or maybe you can detect pixel manipulation with JPGS. not sure, as i am not a pixel-manipulation guru to explain their move.
shooting JPG restricts your post-processing and the end results would suffer if too much generation.
then again, we are in the age of mob editorials, so generation and quality is not an issue .
my untechnical guru guess.
841
« on: November 26, 2015, 16:15 »
SS really behave like the government of my country.
Contributors are unhappy, but they left with no options. SS did what they want. The end of yet another story.
you know, i was just in to see the big preview. sure i don't like the idea of letting the ppl download the 1.5MP or whatever size. but the watermark works well with most images .. ie the shutterstock grey and the x 's . but for some , it appears to be transparent and yes, it's almost non-existent , like jo ann pointed out. maybe they should make one black and one grey , and then give us the option to place the black or the grey like they do with the position of the watermark. it's no point hoping for the old magnify glass anymore. so maybe we ask them for this option.
842
« on: November 26, 2015, 09:24 »
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.
The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.
I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals
As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.
I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.
I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there
I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.
red--- good point. they are no longer considered a stock agency interested in earning money for dls for us. it all started with fb likes, and then offering your 3 yr non-sellers for free. you are correct in that they are making money on traffic and giving away free images from those contributors who thinks free means future income for them. them being dt, and not them that voted to give away their work for free. no surprise they are no longer in the top 4.
843
« on: November 25, 2015, 16:40 »
there is another thread asking if comatose time is dead
now this one is of end of the road.
really, comatose-time fell off a cliff a long time ago. the irony is that they keep sending you those reminders that you have no dls for 3 years and you can donate it for free image if you don't do anything.
i did them a bigger favor, i just deactivated as many images as i can . although i like to delete most of the portfolio but hey, guess what? they won't let you. i think it's even more difficult to de-exclusive your image too.
amazing how much trouble this agency gives you for not getting any dls for 3 years on line.
ss does nothing of this sort, as bad as they are these days, they don't bug . out of you for not getting any dls.
hey guess what? it's because most of the time, you do get dls with ss.
844
« on: November 24, 2015, 11:39 »
The most recent investment in 500px - $13m in July - was led by a company described in this article as China's equivalent of Getty Images. Visual China contributed $8m of the total $13m
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/21/500px-raises-another-13m-to-take-on-getty-and-flickr/
The rest of the money came from the VC firms who gave them money in the previous round.
On paper, having a CEO who has held that position before at a roughly comparable company probably looks like the right move to someone with no real knowledge of the details of the last decade in the stock business in the US.
The quote in the above article that this deal will open up the China market to them seems not to offer much to those of us based outside of Asia - why would content from Boston, the Caribbean, the Pacific Northwest (for examples - they're locations I shoot) be of more than occasional interest to the Chinese market?
This round will also open the door for us to the Greater China market by working with the market leader Visual China Group.
China??? yes, it may be impressive to look to China with Alibaba,etc in the Forbes richest rung.. but again, as another wealthy Chinese tycoon once pointed out, "it's also a place where counterfeit rolexes , wine, etc are considered legal". good luck in getting any action against someone stealing your photographs and selling them.
845
« on: November 23, 2015, 19:44 »
seriously, i must ask you why you do not open a paypal or whatever account so you could get your money immediately?
the paper cheque takes weeks to reach you and another week to cash.
why would you even want to do that???
846
« on: November 23, 2015, 10:37 »
I don't think this is hard to understand. A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital. After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way. It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control.
The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.
It makes sense. If VC's are involved, they want a BIG ROI. That explains Kelly in my mind. He is that resource who will find ways to steal from us to line the pockets of 500PX and their VC's. This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Venture Capitalists + Kelly = high probability he is there to find ways to pad VC pockets at our expense. I just cannot think of any other way to spin it. That't what Kelly was tasked with doing at IS and what he was good at.
This explains it all as far as I am concerned. Kelly was tasked with increasing profits by 50% for the VCs who bought Getty and no doubt he will be doing the same for the VCs who invested in 500px. We've already seen this film, people. We know how it ends.
capice, grazie mille. VC = vampire corporates (suck our blood till nothing left of us but carcass).
847
« on: November 22, 2015, 21:26 »
Well, people are always remembered for the worst thing they ever said or did, so KT will have to personally coo and kiss 20,000 photographers' babies before we will ever forget "money isn't going to be what make us happy".
so true. i try to be objective but now i am more towards the "u can take the leopard out of the jungle but u cannot remove its spot" judgement. tror is correct too in his saying "hiring KT is just irritating suppliers". i am sure even ss has parachuted a lot of ex-istock ppl esp reviewers which is why the almost identical anal-ogy of ss these days. only thing is ss is not stupid enough to announce hey we hired a lot of your notorious istock ppl just to show u contributors how much we like to anal-ize you
848
« on: November 22, 2015, 13:09 »
Really depressing news.
I haven't done microstock in over a year, but recently I started reading posts about 500px and got interested. So I signed up and put up a few photos. And now this. 500px is confusing enough to begin with; really not interested in spending a lot of time figuring it out and submitting hundreds of photos if it's now in the hands of former IS people, especially someone whose agenda was clearly to beat photographers down to the ground on price, while claiming that customers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.
we both keeping being on the same page, my friend... (see red line above) but i held back due to the social-media brigade over there that looks too much like fb. but yes, i agree, they have good images there..which got me to think this could be the one i would consider after a long absence with single digit old agencies going back to Kelly the CEO who preached money is not everything. y'know, that was yesterday, as some pickup expert say..."only count what is today. this moment.. when you pick a woman/man up; don't base your approach on what she/he said yesterday or worse 3 months, a year,etc ago". i like to think this is wise because i have this amazing neighbor who was like Kelly 5 years ago. today, guess what??? all he cares about is money... and he tells me the same thing flipflop from the first time we met. ..for him today "money is not everything". let's wait and see why he moved to 500px.
849
« on: November 21, 2015, 22:01 »
OMG, please fire Kelly before it is too late.
Maybe he is not the only one responsible of iStock's decline but he was an active actor.
He doesn't understand micro/macro stock business model, or at least contributors' part of it. He thinks that all contributors are happy to invest thousands in equipments and shots and getting nothing in return.
so you really believe that everything is did was Kelly's idea???
Kelly was just a chess piece in the whole game...
I don't think it was his idea but it was a bad idea and it was his job to say it.
He was not a simple employee but the iStock's CEO. I am sure that his former boss (Klein) today is regretting the stupid idea and Kelly's 'obedience'.
And I am sure that 'Money will not make you happy' communication was Mr Thompson's personal touch - for me it's enough to doubt in his capacity to make 500px successful.
ok, as i said i don't know who he is, but as you informed me, he was not just management but CEO. that changes everything.. yes, then, he wasn't just "following orders"... he made them. now, my decision with 500 changes too with that insight from you. i will not bother joining them even if 500 decides to be an agency rather than just another fb. thx rene for clarifying . saves me the trouble to prepare for 500 another one bites the dust !!!
850
« on: November 21, 2015, 18:12 »
OMG, please fire Kelly before it is too late.
Maybe he is not the only one responsible of iStock's decline but he was an active actor.
He doesn't understand micro/macro stock business model, or at least contributors' part of it. He thinks that all contributors are happy to invest thousands in equipments and shots and getting nothing in return.
so you really believe that everything is did was Kelly's idea??? Kelly was just a chess piece in the whole game... he never got a share of the profit; just a choice between saying what the owner wants him to say or a pink slip. when he moves to 500, he probably took the pink slip after preparing his departure.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 79
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
