|
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 - loop
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 44
826
« on: January 12, 2010, 08:43 »
Wouldn't it just have been easier to say if you go exclusive by August you get SJlocke's special "canister grandfathering" option.
If you don't go exclusive by that date then you don't get it. end of story.
Just my thoughts.
827
« on: January 10, 2010, 08:08 »
There are thousands of images of tattoed people at istock, incluidng recent and a lot of Vetta ones. Problem must be the letter.
828
« on: December 27, 2009, 20:53 »
Ok... For the rest of you: Suljo got most of the points i have too!
Most of You think that macro is not worth so as micro? I doubt so because that are different worlds with different buyers... And many other different details.
1. I don't give my portfolio link because I am protecting my work in terms of concepts and ideas.
2. I have successful micro pictures but I won't tell you under which name I am selling.
3. My micro pictures aren't the same as my macro pictures.
Have you tried to upload to Moodboard micro? I am sure that your micro images will be rejected in great numbers... Just try that and you will get idea over your accepted there what sells as macro ;-)
So... Thanks for your thoughts about Istock... I am still determined not to upload there as long as they have editors who are uploading their stuff ;-) Editor should be someone who knows what is needed to sell - not to fill in with his own pictures!
ok, message understood. Don't upload.
829
« on: December 26, 2009, 20:07 »
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.
Editorial is not a license type. Editorial is a restriction within a license type. ie., licensing an image RF for editorial use places certain restrictions on how that image may be used.
That's just semantics. Actually, it is. To begin with, you haven't tho work through an agent for sellin and publishing editorial.
830
« on: December 26, 2009, 06:43 »
Editorial is a license type. You can sell any newsworthy photo (for instance, to your local newspaper), without releases, while being exclusive at DT. There's a second line, for books, etc.
831
« on: December 23, 2009, 19:12 »
Actually Yuri's girlfriend, who started later than him, went straigth to exclusivity.
832
« on: December 23, 2009, 18:37 »
More and better photos, another step. That's all.
833
« on: December 23, 2009, 08:54 »
Well, the way the DT e-mail is written, means that they suppose the image is on other sites and can be deleted.
This morning, I deleted it on all sites, without a problem. For Rodeo and Bigstock I sent a delete-request. I know they can take longer than 72 hours to delete the file, but one look at the photo (see below) will tell you there's not much chance it will sell in the first 3 months to come : it's a VERY typical November/Halloween image.
Still, I don't like the fact that this could happen to my bestseller(s), so I will be disabling the SR-EL for my top-50 sellers.
Were you can't have it deleted in 72 hours, you could delete the most significant keywords, to make sure that it won't be found.
834
« on: December 22, 2009, 18:14 »
You may be there already Sean, but again you also started in 2004 where everything you uploaded caught on like wildfire
That's not true. Back in 2004 there were few images at Istock, but the costumer base was also tiny. Selling well wasn't so easy as it seems to imply this comment.
And, on the other hand you seem to imply that diamonds and black diamonds are uploading their full (150/200) quota weekly. That's miles far from true: For instance, Lise has uploaded just 12 photos the last week... that's 23 less than Yuri's 35.
835
« on: December 18, 2009, 17:25 »
It's far better than nothing. And, by the way, being just for exclusives, puts a dilemma on the independents wich are on the fence.
Yep. It essentially means that exclusivity is back off the table for me again. If I go exclusive before hitting Diamond, there is too great a chance that I'd be making less as an exclusive than I would as an independent. Had they allowed this amended grandfathering policy for non-exclusive folks as well, I could have still considered exclusivity. Now there's no chance.
Oh well. Back to business as usual. I guess now I have more incentive to hope that the higher exclusive prices have a positive effect in non-exclusive sales. 
Life is made of choices. Good luck with yours.
836
« on: December 18, 2009, 16:52 »
It's far better than nothing. And, by the way, being just for exclusives, puts a dilemma on the independents wich are on the fence.
837
« on: December 18, 2009, 13:40 »
Wow. Best selling Dreamstime image just had 279 dowloads through the year? Is there some mistake?
838
« on: December 16, 2009, 07:16 »
I've got images removed from Flickr just sending an e-mail to the page administrators. In one case that this dind't work, Compliance Enforcement at istockphoto took care of it and, finally, the photo was removed as well.
839
« on: November 18, 2009, 20:23 »
I had several butterfly images on istock, paper kites and painted ladies as well as several other varieties. I painstakingly researched the names and keyworded them appropriately. My images were tagged, though for inappropriate keywords because I had the words "painted" and "lady" in the keywords or "Paper" and "kite". Since the image had neither lady or paint, nor paper nor kite istock removed them. I have also had keywords removed for other things such as an emerald cut diamond had the word emerald removed because it was not an emerald but a diamond. I had an image of a child waiting at a bus stop. The word bus and stop were removed.
You could have keyworded the child waiting at a bus stop with "Bus Stop" it's part of the CV.
You should put the phrase "paper kite" and "painted lady" in your keywods. Even if no accepted in the CV, the photos soul come up when some knowing customer puts the phrase in quotes. Ypu must realise that 99.9% of the clients looking for "paper" and "kite" are not looking for butterflies.
840
« on: November 16, 2009, 17:50 »
For me IS is rigth. The only agency that sells subs without harming the contributor, the creator of the concept of microstock... and a decent site that works fine for me, as exclusive. I have my own private grudges too, but, being private, I will keep them private.
841
« on: November 13, 2009, 13:04 »
Probably that means that the same customer bougth and payed for it two times; the "corrupted" experiencie and another one to get the file right.
842
« on: November 11, 2009, 19:01 »
Growth. I won't say more.
843
« on: November 02, 2009, 07:21 »
As for that port you've found - it is not me ;-)
As for rest of your comments: Please don't be so frustrated about my decision. I really don't fell I should enclose any of my work to you because you are very 'nasty' and 'mean' people regarding what you've wrote here.
I see that you are frustrated with having me not willing to show my work and still you won't see it unless you really know me. People who know me show their respect - unlikely as you here!
It's not frustratyion, it's just incredulity. In my case, I don't believe at all that you are what, with so much effort, you pretend to be.
844
« on: October 30, 2009, 20:17 »
Didn't you just visit lots of internet cafes (or other's computers), created new accounts and then downloaded your own stuff?
Why would anyone do this (unless they have lost their original images and are trying to get them back for free)?
To improve the position of his photos in the Best Match results. In the past, that was done for some contributors, self-downloading his own files, o creating false accounts to download them. Even paying, it was a good scheme. Once one photo is in the firts positions sales grow exponetially, no matter if the file it's no the best. And that, of course, is unfair an dirty.
845
« on: October 30, 2009, 15:47 »
I much prefer IS's solution to this issue of the Dollar Bin. At least the contributor (and the agency) gets some money out of the deal.
Is anyone actually making much from iStock's DB? Since the price hike there, my images have mostly been moribund, and it's what I'm hearing from others, but hardly a representative sample.
Not doingn much, ok, but not doieng nothing, or not doing less than nothing because some regular customer steps on a free photo that by chance meet his needs, and gets it instead for free of buying some other one.
846
« on: October 30, 2009, 12:54 »
Let's see. DT has a long history of a having a good attitude towards its contributors, so it's just a storm in a glass of water.
It is that, but it's also a part of microstock's relentless march towards free images. The subtle pressure to make your images free, or to sign on to other gimmicky discount plans, won't let up.
That's wrong. Free images just are possible in the way and "quality" they exist now, for instance, at stockechange. Free images will always have the quality of the begginings of microsctok. Certanily, you'll always will be able to find some gem (snapshots, scenery or monuments made by amateurs), but what you willl mostly get is poor stuff, brother in-laws acting as models, cats, pets, nothing worth. Who is going to spend 2,000, or 200 or even 50 dollars in a session to, then, give away the images? Cheepo suscriptions plans, free images... all this doesn't cntribute to brigthen the prestige of micro agencies. At the end, they can find that serious paying customers flee and are repaced for freebie-hunters.
847
« on: October 28, 2009, 05:51 »
Well, there's a well established modality that consists on copying ideas adn photos from Istockexclusives an uploading them everywhere exept at istock, I suppose that in order to avoid trouble. I've been a victim of that many times.
848
« on: October 27, 2009, 17:42 »
If the payment is 10 -20 and just once, they'll get articles worth this price. That's to say, lame stuff. Even so, maybe it's not bad for personal blogs or run of the mill web pages and little online magazines. Microstock works because you can sell one thousand times the same photo and get paid everytime. Ask the microstock shhoters for how much they would sell the full rights of their photos, and you won't get a "microstock" figure.
849
« on: October 27, 2009, 12:29 »
Maybe I'm wrong but, in my view, making lots of images available for free it's a sign of weakness.
850
« on: October 26, 2009, 12:12 »
Yes, I meant that.
Pages: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
